Skip to main content

Full text of "The Theology of the New Testament"

See other formats 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 



at |http : //books . google . com/ 







iiijrarg of tt|f ©tfamitg Siri)ooL 

QITUN BT 
TZXS; SOCTETY 

FOB FBOMOTIKO 



E€ceimd 



^ u^.LoUb, 



189 A/. 



I 



THE 



THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR 



"^i'iLUc^.r. edited h the 
REV. W. R03ERTS0N ^TCOLL, M.A.. 

Bdit0r <if " TheExj^oHfr " 



LL.D. 



PROFESSOR ADENEY'S 
THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 



HODDER AND STOUGHTON 
27, PATERNOSTER ROW 

MDCCCXCIV 



I 



Vint WitoksicKl fti^wnrtar, 

Fca^. 8w, clifik, price as. 6d. each, 

y A Manual of Christian Evidences. 

By the Rev. Prebendary Row, M.A., D.D. 
An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New 
^ Testament 

By the Rev. Prof. B. B. Warfibld, D.D. ^ 
, A Hebrew Grammar. 

By the Rev. W. H. Lowe, M.A. -^ 
/A Manual of Church History. 

By the Rev. A. C. Jennings, M.A. ^ 
Vol. I. From the First to the Tenth Century. 
Vol. II. From the Tenth to the Nineteenth Century. 
, An Exposition of the Apostles' Creed. 

By the Rev. J. E. Vongb, M.A. ^ 
,The Prayer Book. 

By the Rev. Prof. Charles Hole, B.A. 
An Introduction to the New Testament. 
^ By Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D. ^ 
' The Languasre of the New Testament. 
By the Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A. - 
The V^riters of the New Testament : Their Style and 
Characteristics. 
By the same Author. 
. An Introduction to the Old Testament. 

By the Rev. C H. H. Wright, D.D. - 
' Outlines of Christian Doctrine. 

By the Rev. H. C. G. Moule, M.A. - 
The Theology of the Old Testament. 

By the Rev. Prof. W. H. Bennett, M.A. 
The Theology of the New Testament. 

By the Rev. Prof. W. F. Adeney, M.A. 
Christianity and Evolution. 

By the Rev. Prof. Ivbrach, D.D. 



London: HODDER AND STOUGHTON. 



THE THEOLOGY 



NEW TESTAMENT 



5^v ",y ..'c 

WALTER F. ADENEY, M.A. 

Professor of New Testament Introduction^ History^ and Exegesis 
New College^ London 



HODDER AND STOUGHTON 
27, PATERNOSTER ROW 



MDCCCXCIV 



APR'4 1^^^ 



^^cay-^^.tty J^,ctt(. 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 



EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND ESTHER. 

Crown 8tv, clothe ^rice js. 6J, 



London : HODDER AND STOUGHTON. 



Printed by Hazelly Watson^ &* Vineyt Ld.^ London and Aylesbury. 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

INTRODUCTION ... .... 1 

THE TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST . 17-109 

I. The Kingdom of God 17 

II. The Pebson op Christ 26 

III. The Revelation op God . . .42 

IV. The Gospel 49 

V. Redemption 59 

VI. Conditions op Membership in the Kingdom 72 



vi CONTENTS 

PAGE 

VII. The New Ethics 84 

VIII. The Futuee 99 



THE THEOLOQY OP THE APOSTLES . 110-248 
THE PRIMITIVE TYPE: 

I. The Early Pbbachino . . . .120 

II. The Epistle of St. James . .130 

III. Lateb Petrine Theology . .141 

THE PA ULINE TYPE : 

I. The Origin and Development op St. 

Paul's Theology 152 

II. Sin 163 

III. Jesus Christ 176 

IV. Redemption . . . . .185 
V. The Christian Life 196 

VI. The Church and its Ordinances . . 206 
VII. The Future 212 



CONTENTS vii 

PAGE 

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO 
THE HEBREWS 218 

THE JOHANNJNE TYPE: 

I. The Apocalypse . . . . .228 
II. The Gospel and the Epistles . . 236 



INTEODUCTION 

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY— naturally divided into 
two sections, the theology of the Old Testa- 
ment and that of the New — may be best described 
by comparison with the more familiar subject of 
study, Systematic Theology, from which it will be 
seen to differ in two or three clearly marked features. 
First, in its aim. It does not attempt to state truth 
absolutely : it seeks to elucidate a certain presentation 
of truth. Second, in its matierials. These are con- 
fined to the pages of the Bible; whUe Systematic 
Theology, even when relying mainly on Scripture, 
appeals to nature, conscience, reason, experience, etc., 
for the confirmation of its results, if not for the 
data of its arguments. Third, in its method. The 
systematic theologian undertakes to balance and 
harmonise the truths of religion, in order to show 
their organic relationship in a compact body of 
Divinity; the student of Biblical Theology, on the 
other hand, proceeds to trace the development of 
revelation as this emerges through the successive 
books of Scripture, and to compare the various forms 
in which its ideas are conceived by the several 
teachers there represented. Thus it is less ambitious 

I 



2 THE THEOLOGY OF 

than Systematic Theology; but then it admits of 
being more exact and certain. The literary and 
historical stady of Biblical Theology should precede 
the more metajyiiysical speculations of Systematic 
Theology, becau^"'iio just conception either of Judaism 
or of Christianity can be obtained before we have 
come to perceive the thoughts of the inspired writers 
in their original purity. Here we have the stream 
at its fountain-head. 

The nature of the subject indicates the right order 
of procedure for the treatment of it. Clearly the 
familiar custom of starting with the definition of a 
doctrine, and then hunting through the Bible for 
proof -texts, which are often fragmentary utterances 
torn out of all connection with their context and 
flung together regardless of their authorship and the 
age in which they were written, is out of place here. 
We must travel along the very opposite path ; we 
must not commence with any formulated dogma; 
though we may endeavour to lead up to doctrine— 
i.e., to whatever truth the lines of Scripture teaching 
may direct us to. Therefore we have to map out 
the field, not according to the relations of ideas, but 
, according to the character and work of the several 
teachers and writers. Thus, in approaching the 
theology of the New Testament, as one of the two 
branches of Biblical Theology, we must first consider 
the fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ. Then it 
will be requisite for us to examine the separate 
teachings of the Apostles — St. James, St. Peter, St. 
Paul, St. John, etc., observing these in the speeches 
and writings that have come down to us as positive 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 3 

statements of truth, and also considering them in 
their mutual relations as indicative of common agree- 
ment or of divergence between different schools in the 
early Church, as the case may be. Further, this 
study should follow a chronological order as far as 
possible, so that we may be able to discern whether 
there is any such thing as a development of doctrine, 
a progress and growth of revelation, in the New 
Testament. It is needless to say that so great a task 
as is here suggested cannot be accomplished within 
the limits of so small a book as this. All that can be 
attempted is to indicate thei outlines of the subject 
and its salient points. 

In its origin Christianity was not a totally new 
revelation of truth bursting on a world absolutely 
ignorant of Divine things. It assumed a considerable 
knowledge of religion on the part of the people 
among whom it arose, and it availed itself of that 
knowledge so as to build on a foundation already laid. 
It was not an accident that the new teaching 
appeared in the land of Israel, and that its exponents 
were Jews. The essential ideas of the Old Testament 
are presupposed in the New Testament. The lofty 
Jewish monotheism, the incorporeal spirituality and 
the kingly supremacy of God, and the corresponding 
horror of Nature-worship — above all, the holiness of 
God, i.e., His separation from impurity — are all ideas 
carried over from Judaism to Christianity. The 
blending of morality with religion, which distinguishes 
Christianity from most pagan cults, is also a dis- 
tinctive mark of Judaism. The mercy of God to 
sinners. His compassion, longsuffering, and redeeming 



4 THE THEOLOGY OF 

love, forgiving the penitent and rescuing the lost, are 
seen in the Old Testament. Lastly, the essentially 
Christian thought of a King and Saviour, sent by God 
to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth, deliver 
the needy, and finally judge the nations, comes down 
from Old Testament prophecy, and is accepted by 
our Lord, who claims to be this Saviour and King, 
the long-looked-for Messiah. In regard to all tliese 
ideas the New Testament absorbs and confirms the 
highest thought of the Old Testament, while it also 
goes further, correcting what is narrow and material- 
istic in Judaism, and showing its own richer truth 
against the background of the earlier religion. 

The relation of New Testament theology to Jewish 
notions current at the time of Christ is much less 
friendly. Just as the Reformers carried religion back 
from the corruptions of the Middle Ages nearer to 
the primitive conception of it in the New Testament, 
Jesus Christ and His Apostles may be said to have 
turned the thoughts of men to the Old Testament, 
away from the perversions of later Judaism. Not 
one of the schools of theology prevalent in Palestine 
during our Lord's earthly life can be regarded as 
in any way the parent of Christianity. The most 
popular was that of the Pharisees : in its spiritual 
conception of the nature of man, this school found 
more sympathy from Christ than that of the worldly 
and materialistic Sadducees ; but its slavery to puerile 
rabbinical traditions, and its occupation with petty 
externals, to the neglect of great moral and religious 
principles, rendered it sterile of spiritual fruit, and 
roused the most uncompromising antagonism on the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 5 

part of the new religion. Some have thought they 
could trace the origin of Christianity in the doctrines 
and practices of the Essenes. Now, there is much in 
the unworldliness, the brotherliness, and the passion 
for purity characteristic of this humble sect, in its 
lonely retreat by the Dead Sea, that suggests to us 
the brotherly love, the simple living, and the pure 
character of the Christian ideal. But the unpractical 
separation from the world, the childishly scrupulous 
asceticism, and the intense importance attached to 
ceremonial ablutions that marked the Essenes, are 
all directly opposite to New Testament teaching and 
practice. Essenism was essentially narrow, sectarian, 
timorous ; it could never step forth into the sunlight, 
attack great cities, and become a world-wide religion. 
Moreover, historically there is no observable connec- 
tion between this harmless, but unfruitful, attempt to 
escape from the eviLs of the times, and the energetic 
and victorious career of Christianity. New Testament 
theology may be linked on to Old Testament theo- 
logy; but it cannot be attributed to the influences 
of contemporary Jewish thought. 

It is to be observed, however, that in two or three 
details New Testament teaching absorbs and repro- 
duces recently developed Jewish ideas. First, the 
doctrine of the resurrection and future judgment, 
with the conception of the intermediate state in 
Hades, divided into paradise or Abraham's bosom 
on the one side, and Gehenna on the other, grew 
up and was fully elaborated subsequent to the Old 
Testament times, although the germs of it were in 
the ancient Scriptures. These teachings passed over 



6 THE THEOLOGY OF 

into Christianity, with certain important modifica- 
tions. Then the conception of the kingdom of Gk)d 
with the great work of the Messiah described in the 
so-called Psalms of Solomon and in the Book of Enoch 
represents a late development of Messianic ideas 
subsequent to the close of the prophetic era. An 
entirely new character was given to the thought of 
the kingdom of Grod by our Lord ; still the frame- 
work was found in this Jewish thought. Further, 
the great value attached to inspired Scripture by 
later Judaism is reflected in the New Testament 
references to the law and the prophets ; and although 
the Christian writers avoided the extravagances of 
the allegorical method of interpretation into which 
not only the philosophising Alexandrian Philo fell, 
but the rabbis of Palestine also in a less degree, still 
a tincture of something similar may be detected occa- 
sionally in St. Paul. Other points of contact might 
be adduced, but none of them amount to evidence 
of the vital connection of parent and child. In spirit 
and principle New Testament theology is not at all 
the outgrowth of contemporary Judaism. 

Whether the Christian doctrines of the Apostles, 
and especially those of St. Paul, may be regarded as 
a result of Greek thought modifying Jewish traditions 
— as Pfleiderer maintains — must be considered later 
on when we are studying the apostolic writings. 

The author of Ecce Homo opens his book with the 
statement, " The Christian Church sprang from a 
movement which was not begun by Christ." If these 
words refer to the seed or root of Christianity they 
go beyond the facts, for nothing could be more absurd 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 7 

than to suppose that John the Baptist, and not Jesus 
Christ, was the founder of Christianity. But if they 
rather refer to the soil on which the new religion 
first appeared, they state an evident truth ; and even 
as indicative of the initiation of a new movement to 
which not the originator, but the teacher second in 
time gave the real character — and this is what the 
author means — they suggest a correct, though less 
familiar, idea. Christianity first emerged on the crest 
of the wave of a great revival movement that pre- 
ceded it and prepared for it. Jesus commenced His 
public life by taking the humble position of a disciple 
of John the Baptist, and His own earliest followers 
were gathered from the group of the most intimate 
companions of the wilderness prophet. It is neces- 
sary, then, to see what were John's teachings, 
especially in their relation to Christianity. 

John the Baptist was a man of the Old Dispensa- 
tion — the last of the prophets. But though he had 
not crossed the border, he stood on Pisgah and looked 
over into the promised land. All his preaching had 
a forward glance in preparation for the new age. 
Therefore, not only because our record of it is written 
in the Gospels, but because of its being the message 
of the herald of the kingdom, it belongs in some degree 
to New Testament theology. 

It is not possible to connect the Baptist with any 
of the schools of Judaism. He was neither a Pharisee, 
nor a Sadducee, nor an Essene. Some of his habits 
may suggest his connection with the third school. 
His wilderness Hfe, not so far from their retreat, his 
asceticism, and his use of water baptism, call to mind 



8 THE THEOLOGY OF 

the similar customs of the religious dwellers by the 
Dead Sea, and render it even probable that, to some 
extent, he purposely followed their example. On the 
other hand, certain of his habits seem almost designed 
to mark his difference from them. The Essenes 
made it a religious duty to dress in glistening white 
raiment ; John's distinctive clothing was rough tent- 
cloth. They eschewed flesh ; his diet, though frugal, 
was not vegetarian. They practised frequent ablu- 
tions; he instituted a single baptism. It looks as 
though his peculiar personal habits were rather 
moulded on the pattern of the Hebrew prophets, 
and especially on that of his great prototype Elijah ; 
and indeed that he thus designedly set himself to 
show his mission to be that of the forerunner pre- 
dicted by Malachi (Mai. iv. 5). At all events, he 
was successful in making an impression of strength 
and stern, self-denying severity by his singular de- 
meanour, which was so striking that jt even outlived 
the memory of his preaching (see Luke vii. 2 4, 25). 

The surname which was given to John by his 
contemporaries is an indication of the importance 
attached by them to his practice of the rite of 
baptism. If we can trust to a tradition preserved 
by Maimonides, proselytes from the Gentiles were 
received into Judaism by baptism as well as circum- 
cision and sacrificing. Possibly John may have been 
familiar with this usage. If so, the new end for 
which he employed the rite is the more significant. In 
calling Jews to be baptised, he treated them as they 
treated heathen converts — ^.6., he behaved to them as 
though they were outside the covenant. He urged 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 9 

them to wash themselves of their old life, even if 
this were the life of law-observing Pharisees (see 
Matt. iii. 7),* and invited them to take an initial step 
in preparation for entrance into the kingdom of 
heaven. It is not difficult to see the meaning of 
this baptism. It looked two ways — backwards and 
forwards. (1) In relation to the past it signified 
repentance. All ceremonial ablutions are concerned 
with the removal of defilements. But John's teach- 
ings in regard to baptism are more profound than the 
conceptions of his contemporaries, many of whom were 
very rigorous in the practice of repeated washings 
(Mark vii. 3, 4). His rite was known as a ** baptism of 
repentance " (/3a7rTta-/xa jxiravoias, Mark i. 4) and " for 
repentance " (cis /xcravotav, Matt. iii. 1 1), i.e., a baptism 
that pointed to, that urged to, and so led to repent- 
ance. It was also regarded as a baptism " for 
forgiveness of sins " (cts a<ji€cnv d/xapTioii/, Mark i. 4). 
The forgiveness was dependent on repentance. Then, 
by being performed once for all, it signified not the 
simple washing off of the last chance fleck of defile- 
ment, but the thorough cleansing of the life, the 
wholesale repudiation of old ways — a more funda- 
mental repentance than that of the ceremonial is t 
with his daily anxiety about scruples. Here was 
. spiritual teaching which went beyond the ritual 
bathing of the Essenes and the washing of hands and 

* Maimonides is supported by Talmud traditions. See 
Lightfoot, HorcB Hehraicce^ on Matt. iii. 6. It has been 
objected that since our evidence is later than the origin of 
Christianity, the Jews may have borrowed from the Christians; 
but is it likely that they would have adopted the most sig- 
nificant rite of the religion they rejected 1 



10 THE THEOLOGY OF 

culinary vessels by the Pharisees. When the disciple 
of John was plunged into the rushing flood of the 
Jordan he was taught to repent of his whole past 
life, as though to let it be carried right away from 
him by the swift waters on their course to the Dead 
Sea. (2) Looking forward, baptism signified initior- 
Hon. This would be taught by the analogy of 
proselyte-baptism. Just as the new convert gave 
himself up to the Jewish faith and was received into 
the national communion, the disciple of John dedicated 
himself to the kingdom of heaven and was accepted 
as one who should be presented for membership when 
that kingdom appeared. It is important to observe 
that the candidate did not baptise himself. The rite 
was administered by the prophet. Claiming a Divine 
mission, John must have taught by this action both 
that God expects repentance and that God accepts 
penitents and receives those who rightly dedicate 
themselves. It is only in the second of these relations 
that our Lord, whose innocence was recognised by the 
Baptist (Matt. iii. 14), could have sought baptism. 
His desire to be baptised showed that to Him the chief 
meaning of this baptism of John was prospective — 
that it implied self -dedication and initiation. 

What is vividly symbolised by his baptism is more 
clearly explained by the recorded preaching of John. 

In the first place, the Baptist announced the ap- 
proach of the kingdom of heaven. A vague impression 
of its nearness was already abroad. But John was 
the first definitely to proclaim its immediate advent. 
" The kingdom of heaven is at hand " — this is the 
stai-ting-point of all his work. Hausrath supposes 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 11 

that he went further, and writes, " Since the kingdom 
promised to all Israel was at their very doors, as was 
everywhere believed, and as all signs presaged, he, with 
great, heroic, prophetic resolution, will begin it."* 
At all events, he knew that it was not enough calmly 
to " wait for the consolation of Israel," like Simeon 
and Anna (Luke ii. 25). These simple old people in 
the temple could do little to expedite the advent of 
the kingdom ; but the energetic prophet of the wilder- 
ness perceived that God only waited for His people's 
preparation. So he would go even further than 
Christ in one way — trying to take the kingdom of 
heaven " by violence," as our Lord said (Matt. xi. 12) ; 
while Jesus showed by all His teaching that it could 
only come silently and gradually, like the growth of 
spring. 

Next, John warned the Jews of the certain punish- 
ment of sin in the advent of the kingdom. This was 
an alarming anticipation, quite alien to the common 
opinion of the unreflecting multitude. The Jews 
generally seem to have regarded the kingdom of 
God as a Divine rule in the midst of Israel from 
which the chosen people would reap boundless 
national prosperity and glory, while the Divine ven- 
geance was to be poured out on the heads of their 
oppressors. John declared that the kingdom would 
bring judgment and punishment to Israel. His keen 
eye detected the gleam of the axe already lying at the 
very root of the tree, and only waiting for the hand 
of the Expected One to fell the fruitless trunk. In 

* New Testament Times: Time of Jesus (Eng. Trans.), 
vol. i., p. 100. 



12 THE THEOLOGY OF 

this he was following tbe ideas of ancient prophecy, 
and especially those of his favourite prophet Malachi 
(Mai. ii. 12 ; iii. 2, 3 ; iv. 1, 5, 6). He revived the 
often-forgotten truth that God cannot be indifferent 
to sin simply because on former occasions He has 
shown favour to the sinner. So absorbed was John 
with the Vision of Judgment that he had too little 
perception of the gracious and healing blessings of 
the kingdom. But he saw discrimination in j udgment. 
Following Malachi (iii. 3), he announced that there 
would be a refiner's fire destroying the dross, thereby 
plainly implying that the precious metal would be 
saved, and a winnower's fan that spares the wheat 
while scattering the chafltl Still, this is only judgment : 
it is not redemption. 

Based on these two ideas —the idea of the advent 
of the kingdom and the idea of accompanying judg- 
ment — is the practical obligation to repent. The 
rabbis had taught that repentance must precede the 
coming of the Messiah ; * but apparently they had only 
taught it in theory. John urged this truth upon his 
hearers with vehement earnestness, declaring that it 
could not be evaded by any privilege of birth or rank. 
Jews might plead that Abraham was their father ; 
but, since God could raise up children for Abraham 
from the very stones of the wilderness (Luke iii. 8), 
He was not dependent upon the existence of the 
generation then living for the continuance of a 
chosen people. Scrupulous Phai-isees, and Sadducees, 
though nlany of them of priestly rank, were really no 
better than a brood of vipers, such as the vermin 
* Sec Reynolds, John the Baptut, p. 246. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 13 

that might be lurking among those stones ; therefore 
they could expect no more merciful fate than the 
fire that burns out the noxious nest, unless their 
characters were completely changed. 

Then this" repentance must be no merely formal 
performance of fasting in sackcloth and ashes, but a 
real " change of disposition " (/xcravota), which would be 
evidenced by amendment of conduct. " Bring forth 
therefore fruits worthy of repentance " (Luke iii. 8), 
cried the preacher. When asked what these fruits 
were to be, he showed that he was not thinking of 
artificial penance. The rich must assist the poor; 
the tax-gatherer must be honest and not oppressive 
— a great sign of repentance in the East ; the soldier 
must not treat the people among whom he is billeted 
with violence or injustice, neither must he mutiny 
against orders, etc. (vers. 10-14). 

All this was preparatory for the coming of the 
Messiah, whose approach John announced and whose 
mission he described. It has been pointed out that the 
special line of ancient prophecy followed by John did 
not refer to the coming of the Son of David as the 
Messiah. It was a parallel stream of predictions 
describing " the day of the Lord " and the advent of 
God to judgment. Hence it might seem that John 
would have looked for the kingdom of heaven without 
a personal Messiah, in a great theophany of judgment 
If he began his ministry with any such expectation 
it is plain that before he ended it he accepted and 
taught the doctrine of a personal Messiah. Perhaps 
we may lay it to his credit, as a part of his contribu- 
tion to the advance of thought, that be was able to 



14 Tf^E THEOLOGY OF 

combine the two currents of Hebrew prophecy, and to 
show that the day of the Lord was the day of Christ. 

Lastly, John predicted thebaptism of the Holy Ghost. 
Thus, while proclaiming that the Messiah would bring 
judgment, he added one most important and signifi- 
cant trait to the expected advent. The Messiah would 
accomplish a higher and more effective baptism than 
that of John, and it was on account of this baptism 
that John proclaimed the incomparable superiority of 
the Coming One. He was conscious of the imperfec- 
tion of his own baptism, which was joined to repent- 
ance, but not to regeneration. It did not really 
purge out the old leaven ; it could not confer a new 
life. The Christ would do both. John associates fire 
with the new baptism, saying " He shall baptise you 
with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Luke iii. 16). 
These two elements of the baptism seem to be suggestive 
of the two aspects of the rite. In regard to the past, 
the fire goes further than the water, completely purging 
out the old evil from the community. " The chaff He 
will burn up with unquenchable fire" (ver. 17). In 
regard to the future, the Holy Spirit signifies more 
than initiation into a new order. It is the quickening 
breath of a new life. This is John's sole word con- 
cerning the blessedness of the Messianic era. It is 
deeply significant that he totally ignored the vulgar 
anticipations of a golden age of material enjoyments, 
and simply pointed to this one magnificent hope — the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost. 

According to the fourth Evangelist, John came to 
regard Jesus as the Messiah after he had baptised 
Him (John i. 33). This is not inconsistent with the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 15 

fact that subsequently in the melancholy of his weary 
imprisonment, when he had exchanged the free air of 
the wilderness for the stifling atmosphere of the castle 
dungeon, the prophet was perplexed at the delay of 
Jesus to declare Himself and take up the expected work 
of the Christ (Matt. xi. 2, 3). A more remarkable 
statement of the fourth Evangelist is that John pointed 
out Jesus as ** the Lamb of God, which taketh away 
the sin of the world." These words plainly suggest, 
not only that Christ removes sin, but that He does 
this by being Himself a sacrifice for sin. The evident 
fact that St. John^s own reflections are mingled with 
his reports of the Baptist's words in another place 
(John i. 15-18) has suggested a doubt whether it is 
so here. In regard to the life of Christ we shall see 
that the fourth Gospel is the Gospel of apostolic 
reflections. Still, the words are deliberately ascribed 
to the Baptist. 

Note. — This reference to the fourth Gospel raises the question 
how we are to use that work as a record of the teaching of Christ 
as well as one of the teaching of St. John. The consideration of 
so diflBcult a subject cannot be brought within the limits of a 
note, and the larger question of the authenticity of the Gospel 
which lies behind it and is the most important question for 
determining it belongs rather to the field of '* New Testament 
Introduction." All that can be done here is to indicate the 
grounds on which we may proceed. Now the style of language 
which St. John employs is so nearly the same when he is 
writing in his own person as it is when he is writing in the 
persons of John the Baptist and of Christ that we sometimes 
fail to detect any transition (^.^., John ill. 10-21) ; this is 
also the style of the three Epistles of St. John ; but it is not 
the style of the language of Christ in the Synoptics. Ttiese 
facts strongly suggest that St. John has cast the thoughts of 



16 ^THEOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT 

~~ Christ into his own words, after fusing them in the crucible 
of his own mind. On the other hand, no one ever absorbed the 
spirit of our Lord so truly as did the beloved disciple. If it is 
the spirit that quickens while the letter is but dead, we have 
the most valuable teaching of Christ in the fourth Gospel, 
for here we have its very spirit. It is to be noted also that 
where St. John is not merely reflecting on some utterance of 
Christ, but plainly speaking for himself, a difference may be 
observed between some of his thoughts and those of his reports 
of our Lord's discourses. Thus the " Logos " doctrine of the pro- 
logue never appears in our Lord's utterances as these are re- 
corded in the Gospel, while the picturesque imagery of Christ's 
sayings — ^the manna, the water, the shepherd, the door — does 
not occur in passages which St. John sets down as his own com- 
position. Further, the most striking words attributed to our 
Loi-d in this Gospel are inextricably interwoven with those 
graphic narratives which there is a growing tendency, even 
among critics who reject the Johannine authorship of the book, 
to regard as historical. Lastly, the more lengthy discourses are 
not fluent orations, like the speeches in ,Thucydides, such as it 
was customary for an ancient historian to compose in order to 
express what he believed to be the true thoughts of the char- 
acters he was' delineating ; but they consist of a number of 
aphorisms strung together like pearls. Broken up they do not 
look so unlike the short, pithy sayings which the Synoptics 
record. There is one broad argument which, since it was 
expounded by Schleiermacher, has satisfied many who other- 
wise would have been troubled by grave difficulties in this 
matter — viz., that the Gospel which gives us the greatest 
teaching in the world must be genuine in its claim to give us 
the ideas of the world's greatest Teacher. Considerations such 
as these point to the conviction that we may use the fourth 
Gospel with confidence as a source for the teaching of our 
Lord. At the same time the peculiar gharacter of St. John's 
Gospel and the evident fact that the writer has to some extent 
allowed himself a free hand in interpreting the ideas of his 
Master, render it desirable for us to treat the reminiscences in 
this work apart from those of the Synoptics. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 
CHRIST 



L THE KINGDOM OF GOD 

ODEr Lord began His public work by repeating 
the proclamation which had been the burden 
of the preaching of John the Baptist ; ** The kiug- 
dom of God is at hand: repent ye" (Mark i. 15). 
Although it is apparent that His groat independent 
naisKion soon led llim fnr beyond the simple message 
of His predecessor, it is equally clear that this 
ines5Sage struck the keynote of all His suliseqaent 
toiiehing- The idea of tbe Divine kingdom was the 
central topic of His conversations and parables, and 
the realisation of it was the supreme end of Hig 
labours. Therefore an exposition of the teaching of 
C'hri^t must begin here if it is to treat the subject 
from some approach to the ^standpoint of the Teacher 
Himself. 

The Greek word jSoo-tXcta is used in two senses : ' 
(1) concretely, to signify a "kingdom/' the territory 
and people and general body politic over which a 
king rules ; and (2) abstractly, meaning ^* kingship," 
17 2 



18 THE THEOLOGY OF 

or the rule of a king. In the New Testament the 
first signification is predominant, but the word some- 
times passes over into the second (e.^., Luke xxii. 29 ; 
xxiii. 42). Thus we read both of entering into the 
kingdom of God and of receiving the kingdom of 
God — the one phrase suggesting the realm, and the 
other the rule. But, inasmuch as both these expres- 
sions occur in the same sentence (Mark x. 15), the 
two senses of the word paxriKda must be regarded 
as blended together, and this is a natural result 
of the new spiritual conception which our Lord has 
given to us of the nature of the kingdom.* 

Essentially the idea of a kingdom of God is that of 
a theocracy — a state in which God rules. This con- 
ception was familiar to the Jews in earlier ages, and 
was then cherished as the ideal of national government 
by the choicer spirits; so that to the prophets the 
human monarch was but a vice-roy, while Jehovah 
was the true King of Israel. An attempt was made 

* St. Matthew alone uses ^ the expression " kingdom of 
heaven." In the other Evangelists, and everywhere else in 
the New Testament, the alternative phrase "kingdom of God" 
is employed. Subtle attempts have been made to distinguish 
between the two expressions, but the simple fact that they 
occur in parallel passages should remove all doubt as to their 
meaning precisely the same thing {e.g.^ compare Matt. xiii. 11 
with Mark iv. 11). The two expressions were used by the 
rabbis as equivalent. Verbally, indeed, the phrase " kingdom 
of heaven" means the kingdom which comes from heaven 
(suggested by Dan. vii. 13, 14), and which is therefore of 
a heavenly nature ; for it is not a New Testament usage 
to employ the word " Heaven " as a synonym for " God." 
But the same kingdom is thought of, whichever name is used 
for it. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 19 

to realise the idea in the government of the Asmonsean 
princes who were also priests. But this earthly 
theocracy, in the form of a priest-government, did 
not satisfy the highest hopes; or if there was a 
temporary satisfaction in the glorious days of the 
Maccabees, in course of time that gave place to the 
disappointment of the subjection of the people under 
a heathen yoke. Still, the belief in a future perfect 
state wherein God would set up His kingdom was 
preserved. Therefore neither John the Baptist nor 
Jesus Christ had to make the first announcement 
that there was to be such a thing as a kingdom 
of God. They did not speak of a kingdom, they 
preached about the kingdom ; and when they said 
" the kingdom of God is at hand " there is every 
indication that their language was intelligible to the 
people. Now, since we cannot think that they were 
playing with words and deceiving their hearers, we 
must perceive that they accepted the general idea 
of the kingdom as that was understood by the Jews. 
This is not so difficult to believe in the case of John 
the Baptist, who probably followed the prevalent 
notion of a visible monarchy, although he attributed 
to it a higher moral character than the people 
generally conceived ; but it is remarkable in the case 
of Jesus Christ, because our Lord drew a startlingly 
unexpected picture of the Divine kingdom. We may 
find the explanation, however, in the fact that the 
essential idea of the kingdom as this was held by the 
Jews was adopted and confirmed by Christ. This 
great, God-inspired hope of Israel was ratified by our 
Lord. The people were taught to believe that God 



20 THE THEOLOGY OP 

would come and set up His kingdom in the midst of 
them ; Jesus declared that He was commencing to 
do so. We must not let the materialistic degradation 
of the notion among the Jews blind our eyes to the 
essential validity of the idea infitself. 

The Jews expected the great hope of the kingdom 
of God to be realised in the establishment of an 
earthly monarchy, with the victorious deliverance of 
Israel from the dominion of Rome, and the triumphant 
re-establishment of the throne of David at Jerusalem, 
under a human but God-appointed and preter- 
naturally endowed Messiah, reigning in far brighter 
splendour than that of the palmiest days of old, 
bringing the heathen into subjection, and in particular 
sealing the doom of the enemies of Israel. It has 
been asserted that Jesus Christ at first adopted this 
view, and expected to be the Messiah of popular 
earthly grandeur, and that He only developed a more 
spiritual conception of the kingdom of God when He 
saw the impossibility of succeeding in a rebellion 
against the iron might of the Koman Empire. There 
is no evidence in support of this assertion. Although 
doubtless our Lord was cradled in the prevalent 
notions of His age, by the secret development of His 
own thought He must have grown out of them 
before He commenced His public ministry, for in no 
single word did He encourage those notions. All 
that can be said in favour of the assertion is that 
Jesus preached about " the kingdom of God," and 
that thus His words would call to mind the Jewish 
picture of this kingdom. But we have seen that 
He adopted the essential idea of the kingdom. He 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 21 

never abandoned that idea in His most spiritual 
teaching. On the other hand, no single word is 
recorded of Him implying that He ever taught that 
the form of the kingdom would be that of the 
Jewish imagination. His earliest known teachings 
are devoted to the enlargement, enrichment, and 
spiritual elevation of the idea. 

But Jesus not only rescued the conception of the 
kingdom of God from its degradation in later Jewish 
thought to a purely political embodiment, and so 
restored the high moral and religious character of the 
great hope as this was foreshadowed by the prophets 
— He not only thus returned from the gross mate- 
rialism of His contemporaries to the lofty teaching 
of Isaiah and Jeremiah — He went much further, 
and raised the idea of the kingdom into an exalted 
position it had never before attained. In His treat- 
ment of this subject He was strikingly and inspiringly 
original. Let us note some of the characteristics of 
the new development. 

The chief of these is the spiritual nature of the 
kingdom. In the teaching of our Lord the kingdom 
of Grod is not an external, earthly dominion. It is 
the rule of Grod in the hearts of His people. It 
is going too far to say that Jesus held this rule 
to be solely individualistic. The very idea of a 
kingdom implies a society, and our Lord expended 
much of His teaching on the social relations of His 
disciples. Still, even in these social relations He 
represented them as governed from within — ^not by 
law and force of magistrates, but by affections and 
principles and interior motives. This is the most 



22 THE THEOLOGY OF 

important feature of our Lord's teaching concerning 
the kingdom. It occasioned much perplexity and 
disappointment among His disciples even to the last 
(e.^., Luke xxiv. 21 ; Acts i. 6) ; and it led to His 
utter rejection by the Jews. Yet He persisted in 
it when He stood almost alone, without wavering 
for a moment. Such a conception of the kingdom 
involves certain important consequences. Its privi- 
leges must depend on moral and spiritual conditions. 
Only they can be citizens of the kingdom who are 
in the right spiritual state to receive it (Mark x. 15). 
Its limits cannot be territorial. It may have ad- 
herents anywhere; even in the most favoured 
localities many may be excluded from it (Matt, 
viii. 11, 12). It will not strike the eyes of the 
world by an appearance in any external form, will 
not come " with observation " (Luke xvii. 20). 
Its blessings will be chiefly internal — not power, 
wealth, luxury, but rest (Matt. xi. 28), and the 
vision of God (v. 8) ; although it will also confer 
temporal advantages, and its meek citizens will inherit 
the earth (ver. 5). 

A very fresh and significant thought put forth by 
our Lord is that of the gradual growth of the kingdom. 
He commenced by proclaiming that it was at hand. 
Subsequently He spoke of it as already present, 
saying on one occasion, " If I by the finger of God 
cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come 
upon you " (Luke xi. 20) ; and again, on being asked 
by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was to 
come, replying in the words, " The kingdom of God 
coineth not with observation : neither shall they say, 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 23 

Lo, here ! or, There I for lo, the kingdom of God is 
among you " (Luke xvii. 20, 21\* On the other hand, 
He spoke of the advent of the kingdom as future, 
as in His model prayer, saying, " Thy kingdom 
come " (xi. 2). The explanation of this apparent 
self-contradiction is not far to seek. The kingdom 
did not come fully at once with a great apocalypse 
of glory, as the Jews expected. It came not only 
invisibly and secretly, but in a small beginning, like 
a grain of mustard seed, or a little leaven ; and its 
development was gradual. A beautiful parable, only 
recorded by the second Evangelist, illustrates this fact 
by means of the analogy of spring growth (Mark 
iv. 26-9). Even while the kingdom was in their 
midst people could only enter it one by one, and 
therefore its privileges were still only possibilities of the 
future among those who lingered outside its borders 
— an obvious truth for all time. Moreover, the full 
realisation of the kingdom was a promise of the 
future, awaiting, as a preliminary condition, the 
judgments on the Jews predicted in Matt, xxiv., 
and as a final condition the complete evangelisation 
of the world. 

The next step is to the idea of the world-wide 
destiny of the kingdom. This is closely related to one 

* This interpretation, rather than the rendering "the 
kingdom of God is within you," seems preferable for two 
reasons : (1) Our Lord's words are a reply to the question, 
When is the kingdom to come ? The more natural answer is 
to say it is already present, rather than to state loliere it is. 
(2) These words were addressed to Pharisees. The kingdom 
was not within them ; but it was amoDg them. The Greek 
word iv7h% admits of cither meaning. 



24 THE THEOLOGY OF 

of the consequences of the first-mentioned principle, 
that of the spiritual nature of the kingdom — ^viz., its 
independence of geographical boundaries. But Jesus 
went further. Not only did He teach that the gates 
of the kingdom were open to all mankind ; He also 
declared that the kingdom was destined to spread 
over the entire world. The leaven was to leaven 
the whole meal (Luke xiii. 21). Nothing is more 
remarkable than the daring with which One who 
appeared as an artisan in an obscure provincial town 
claimed to have founded a kingdom which was to 
conquer the world, with the utmost confidence that 
never faltered at any disappointment — except the 
striking way in which the history of Christendom 
has been verifying His words through all the cen- 
turies. No doubt the Jews looked for a wide, if not 
a universal dominion; but this was to have Jerusalem 
for its centre, and to be a purely Jewish empire. 
With Christ the kingdom is cosmopolitan. 

Lastly, our Lord unveiled the supreme blessedness 
of the kingdom of God. The specific boons promised 
by Christ will fall to be considered by themselves 
below. Here it may be remarked, however, that the 
kingdom itself is shown to be the srmimum honum. 
While people persisted in treating it as a means to 
earthly, materialistic ends, Jesus would have it re- 
ceived as an end in itself — as treasure hid in a field, 
as a pearl of great price, to obtain which a merchant 
sells all he has (Matt. xiii. 44-6). Therefore our 
Lord bids His disciples trust all other matters to 
God, in order to be free to devote their supreme care 
to obtaining the kingdom, and says, " Seek ye first His 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 25 

kingdom" (Matt. vi. 33). This is the more remark- 
able because it is in striking contrast to John the 
Baptist's sombre picture of the coming kingdom. 

There is a certain development in our Lord's 
teaching concerning the kingdom of heaven ; but 
this does not follow the course which might have 
been anticipated. Jesus began by expounding the 
brightest pictures of the new age, and in doing so 
His cheerful gospel shone out like sunshine over 
against John the Baptist's vision of judgment. But 
this gospel was rejected by the great majority of 
those to whom it was preached. Then our Lord 
changed His tone, and in His later teaching de- 
scribed the coming of the Son of Man in judgment 
to visit the sinful people with chastisement (Matt, 
xxiv. 29-31). Thus He returned, in a measure, to 
the message of John the Baptist, who had spoken 
of the winnowing fan and the axe. The utterance of 
these darker truths may have been occasioned by the 
painful disappointment of the earlier hopes of our 
Lord's ministry, but the truths themselves belong 
to the essential conception of the kingdom of God. 
It is a righteous rule ; therefore it must bring judg- 
ment, and this must lead to wrath against sin and 
bitter chastisemenb. Yet all these things are now 
to be considered in the Hght of the gospel of peace 
which comes between John the Baptist and the final 
scenes of Christ's ministry. 

In the fourth Gospel the kingdom^ of God is only 
twice referred to by name. The first passage is in 
the conversation with Nicodemus, where Jesus says, 
"Except a man be bom from above, he cannot see the 



26 THE THEOLOGY OF 

kingdom of God" (John iii. 3). These words show 
the spiritual character of the kingdom and the 
necessity of a right condition for participating in 
its privileges. What is fresh to us is the doctrine 
of the new birth, which we must consider later on. 
The second is that in which Jesus says to Pilate, 
" My kingdom is not of this world : if My kingdom 
were of this world, then would My servants fight, 
that I should not be delivered to the Jews : but now 
is My kingdom not from hence" (xviii, 36). Here, 
before the representative of Rome, Jesus distinctly 
repudiates the conventional Jewish notion of the 
kingdom. The specific point of His words directs 
attention to its origin. It does not come from this 
world. Its source is in heaven, in God. Therefore 
its methods of government must be spiritual, not 
temporal. There is nothing in this at all out of 
harmony with what we have seen in the Synoptics. 
But the general drift of the fourth Gospel runs into 
ideas of light, life, etc., and thus the form of thought 
does not often lead it to cross the lines of the utter- 
ances in the Synoptics on the subject of the kingdom 
of God. The two passages referred to are enough, 
however, to indicate that it accepts our Lord's views 
of the kingdom in general as these appear in the 
earlier Gospels. 

II. THE PERSON OF CHRIST 

The peculiarity of our Lord's teaching about 
Himself as this is recorded in the Synoptics is 
that it is presented in casual hints and enigmatical 



THE KEW TESTAMENT 27 

pErases, rather than in the clear assertion of definite 
claims. His shrinking from the hlaze of fame, which 
is often apparent {e.g,, Mark i. 44; iii. 12; v. 43; 
vii. -36), may be ascribed to modesty. But the 
strange way in which He refers to Himself cannot 
be entirely accounted for by this graceful attribute 
of a sensitive nature, because at times He makes the 
most astounding assertions concerning His own rights 
and prerogatives. A further explanation may be found 
in the necessity of educating His disciples in new 
views of old hopes. This will be apparent if we go 
a little more into detail. 

The Head of the expected kingdom of Grod was 
known among the Jews in Hebrew as " the Messiah," 
and in Greek as " the Christ," i.e,, " the Anointed," 
with an evident reference to the solemn anointing 
of a king chosen by God, and of the endowment of 
the Divine Spirit which that anointing represented 
(1 Sam. xvi. 13). Thus the title implied that the 
predicted King would be both chosen by God and filled 
with the Spirit of God. The descent of the Holy 
Spirit upon our Lord in His baptism is represented 
in the Gospels to be this Divine designation of Jesus 
as the Christ together with the expected gift of the 
Spuit. Evidently our Lord understood the event in 
this sense, and henceforth He shaped all His course 
on the ground that He was the Christ. He never 
repudiated the title when it was offered to him ; 
sometimes He unmistakably claimed it (Mark 
x. 47-9 ; XV. 2). 

On the other h%pd, He was slow to publish it. He 
did not first take it for Himself ; it was addressed to 



28 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Him by admiring followers before He had sanctioned 
the use of it. Then, although He never denied it, 
He repeatedly checked the enthusiastic proclamation 
of it by thoughtless disciples, sometimes with an 
imperativeness indicative of vexation, which showed 
that He was actuated by more decided motives than 
the distaste for notoriety natural to a person 
of fine feelings (e.^., Mark i. 43).* We must 
remember that His conception of the Messiahship 
was necessarily conditioned by His conception of 
the kingdom of God. He confirmed the general 
expectations of both ; but as He modified, and even 
revolutionised, the nature of the kingdom, it was 
necessary for Him to do just the same with the 
characteristics of the King. To have proclaimed 
Himself Messiah before He had carefully instructed 
His disciples in the spiritual nature of His kingdom 
would have been to have aroused delusive expecta- 
tions, and very likely to have excited a rebellion 
against Rome, in which His real work would have 
been lost, and a flood of disasters, anticipating the 
horrors of the later wars of the Jews, would have 
swept over the disappointed nation. Hence it was 
necessary for Him to discourage the popular ascription 
of the Messiahship at first, just as it was necessary 
for Him to renounce it in His own thoughts once for 
all on the occasion of His great temptations in the 
wilderness, where its garish promises tried in vain to 
fascinate Him, until one by one he trampled them 
under foot and emerged determined in heart to realise 

* Observe the strong word i/x^pifirja-dfiepos^" sternly admon- 
ishing," as though with anger. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 29 

an incomparably more lofty ideal, although He knew 
this would provoke misapprehension and involve Him 
in a life of thankless toil. First the^disciples must 
know His truth, His aim, His character ; afterwards, 
and on the ground of this knowledge, it would be 
possible for them to receive His Kingship without 
serious misunderstandings. For this reason it was 
best that it should be perceived by men in their 
meditation on the character aud work of Christ, 
rather than baldly claimed and plumply asserted. 
Besides, it was quite in accordance with His whole 
method of teaching, which was to awaken thought, 
not to impart ready-made information, that our Lord 
should wait for His disciples to form their own 
opinions of Him. Even then the acknowledgment 
by those who were in a measure trained to under- 
stand His position was not a justification for im- 
mediately publishing His title. The knowledge must 
be confined at first to the inner circle of those who 
could appreciate it. The famous scene at CaBsarea 
Philippi marks that stage in the gradual teaching 
of the Apostles at which they have come to be 
fully assured that Jesus is the Christ, Yet, even 
after receiving St, Peter's clear confession, Jesus 
" charged the disciples that they should tell no man 
that He was the Christ" (Matt. xvi. 20). In the 
very last week of His earthly life He suddenly 
adopted a totally different course; by riding in 
rustic triumph up to Jerusalem, amid the unchecked 
applause of the crowd. He openly accepted the 
Messiahship, though in a startlingly lowly manner. 
But then He knew that He was riding to His death. 



/ 



30 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Bj this time His true disciples could understand Him 
in some measure, and it was now too late for harm to 
come of the delusions of the ignorant. Thus it was 
as one who claimed to be King of the Jews that 
Jesus was tried before Pontius Pilate (Mark xv. 2), 
,nd crucified (ver. 26). 

The title which our Lord most frequently employed 
when referring to Himself was " the Son of Man " 
— a title never used by any of His contemporaries in 
addressing Him. What did He mean by it ? Several 
explanations have been offered. It has been sug- 
gested that the term indicated His human nature, in 
contrast with His Divine nature. But this is not 
a New Testament thought. Nobody doubted that 
He was a man. There were no Docetics in His day. 
Some have regarded the expression as a periphrasis for 
the fii-st person singular. But this is not like our 
Lord's natural style; He often used the simple 
pronoun "L" Moreover, the interpretation would 
require " this Man," or " this Son of Man." Again, 
it is said that the words point to the peculiar nature 
of our Lord's humanity as something new, and not 
in the ordinary line of mankind. Would Jesus call 
Himself Son of Man with such an end in view] 
There is no indication that He contemplated any such 
lesson. An explanation resembling that last men- 
tioned is that the title marked Ohrist as the ideal and 
perfect man. The definite article rather favours this 
notion. He i« " the Son of Man." But the ancient 
usage of the phrase is foreign to such an explanation ; 
in the Old Testament the expression is generally 
associated with notions of weakness and lowliness. 



THE NEW TESTAMEl^T 31 

Then we have the suggestion that the title was 
intended to show that nothing human was strange to 
Christ, in contrast with popular notions of splendour 
connected with the Messiah. Jesus was the brother 
of all men. This is nearer to the teaching and 
character of our Lord, but it is not distinctly indicated 
in the phrase. 

One thing is clear. The very variety of the inter- 
pretations which have been suggested for the title 
shows that its meaning could not be obvious. Our 
Lord seems to have used it purposely as an enigma 
TO arouse questions, to stimulate reflections, just as 
He used His parables as blinds for the unthinking, 
but transparent pictures for the reflective (Mark iv. 
11, 12). We may look for the key in two directions : 
in the Old Testament usage of the term, and in an 
induction of the instances in which Jesus employs it 
Himself. 

In the Old Testament we meet with it as a 
Hebraistic synonym for " man *' generally. But the 
Hebrew usage of similar forms of speech leads us to 
think that it must also be employed with a distinct 
reference to the characteristics of man, as we have the 
phrases " sons of thunder " (Mark iii. 17) for passionate 
men, "sons of the evil one" (Matt. xiii. 38) for 
wicked men, etc. Accordingly we find the word used 
in the Old Testament with a special leaning to the 
idea of the weakness of man. This is apparent in 
Ezekiel, the writer who employs it most .frequently 
(e.^., Ezek. ii. 1, 3, etc.). But there is one instance of 
the use of the term in a very different and most 
striking connection — ^viz., in Daniel's prophetic vision 



32 THE THEOLOGY OF 

of the world-kingdoms. After the four beasts there 
comes one like " a Son of Man " with the clouds of 
heaven, and to Him there is given a kingdom and an 
everlasting dominion (Dan. vii. 13, 14). That the 
prophecies of Daniel were familiar to our Lord and 
were applied by Him to Himself and His kingdom is 
unquestionable (Mark xiii. 14, 26). It is therefore 
very generally thought that He took the title 
" Son of Man " with a direct reference to DanieVs 
Messianic vision. It is in some measure a con- 
firmation of this view that the title was used for 
the Messiah in the Book of Enoch. Whether the 
Messianic portions of that book were written before 
the time of Christ or not, they could not have been 
familiar to our Lord's hearers, who certainly did 
not take the title " Son of Man " to be equivalent 
to that of "Messiah" {e.g., Matt, xvi, 13, 14). 
But our Lord seems to have employed an obscure 
and unusual title for the Messiah, which was at 
the same time too general to be evidently Messianic, 
to suggest a new line of thought in the minds of 
His disciples. In contrast with the four beasts, 
the Son of Man appeared as greater in the scale 
of being, more gentle and humane, and outwardly 
more weak, though really more powerful. These 
ideas were important in the correction of coarse, 
false Messianic hopes. 

An induction of the instances in which our Lord 
uses the title leads to the same conclusion. One or 
both of two characteristics are found in all of them. 
They are all passages in which Jesus describes His 
mission. His functions, or His future work and 



!rBE NEW TESTAMENT 3^ 

destiny ; * and they generally do this with some 
reference to His present lowly estate, His poverty 
and apparent weakness. These two ideas, then, are 
to be found in the utterances about the Son of Man : 
the specifically Messianic work of our Lord, and His 
earthly humiliation — e.^., the Son of Man " has 
authority " (Mark ii. 10), is " Lord of the Sabbath " 
(ver. 28), is the Sower (Matt. xiii. 37), will come in 
glory (Mark viii. 38), etc. ; and on the other hand, 
the Son of Man **has not where to lay His head" 
(Luke ix. 58), " came not to be ministered unto, but 
to minister" (Mark x. 45), will be set at naught 
(viii. 31), etc. 

Thus to thoughtful hearers our Lord's use of the 
title helps in the correction of false expectancy and in 
the understanding of His true character and mission. 

Jesus did not use the title " the Son of God " inter- 
changeably with the name " the Son of Man"; but, like 
the appellation " Messiah " or ". Christ," it was more 
frequently given to Him by others. On the lips of 
the high-priest it seems to be just an honourable 
name for the Messiah, pointing to Divine recognition 
and favour and close relations with God to be enjoyed 
by the expected King, but. not to the real Sonship in 
nature and being which Christians understand by the 
phrase (Matt. xxvi. 63). Many clear references to 
Divine Sonship in the Old Testament would naturally 
lead to the use of the title for the Messiah by Jews 
of later times (e.^.. Psalm ii. 7; Ixxxix. 26). We 

* Hamack has pointed out that the title " Son of Man," 
being derived from Daniel's vision, more especially suggests 
the heavenly origin of the Messiah. 

3 



34 THE THEOLOGY OF 

cannot be sure that St. Peter had got beyond the 
Jewish thought in his great confession (Matt. xvi. 16), 
Like the more familiar name of the future King, this 
was also accepted by our Lord without question or 
objection. But it is evident that interpreting it by 
His own inner consciousness of closest relation to His 
Father He saw more in it. We may say that while 
there were Jews who vaguely regarded a certain 
Divine Sonship as an attribute of the Messiah and 
dependent on the Messianic calling, Jesus reversed the 
process, and knew Himself to be the Messiah because 
ITe was first of all inwardly conscious of Divine Son- 
ship. This consciousness emerges in the one recorded 
utterance of His childhood (Luke ii. 49). He fre- 
quently speaks of Gk)d distinctively and emphatically 
as " My Father '* {e.g,, Matt. vii. 21 ; x. 32 ; xv. 13, 
etc.); and although He also often names God to 
His disciples as "your Father," He never uses the 
expression " Our Father " in such a way as to include 
Himself with His disciples in a common relationship. 
Surely this shows that His use of the pronoun of the 
first person singular points to a unique Sonship. Once 
in the Synoptics He speaks of Himself as simply " the 
Son,'* after the manner of the fourth Gospel, with a 
strange, solemn exaltation of tone, and indicating a 
peculiar intimacy of knowledge between Himself and 
His Father wliich no other being enjoys (Matt. xi. 27 ; 
Luke X. 22). 

It was early noticed by His delighted hearers that 
Jesus "taught them as having authority, and not 
as their scribes " (Mark i. 22), Not only was there 
weight and power in His utterances — ^which was 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 35 

perhaps what the Evangelists meant by authority — 
but there was also a calm assumption of the right to 
teach, even sometimes in opposition to the venerated 
precepts of the law — e.^., " Ye have heard that it was 
said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth : but 
I say unto you, Eesist not him that is evil " (Matt. 
V. 38, 39) ; and so in other cases, where Jesus did not 
hesitate to set aside the authority of Moses as obsolete. 
Then, while the disciples appealed to " the Name " of 
Christ in working miracles, Jesus Himself wrought 
them on His own authority. Thus St. Peter said to 
the lame man at the Temple, " In the name of Jesus 
Christ of Nazareth, walk " (Acts iii. 6) ; but Jesus said 
to the paralytic at Capernaum, " I say unto thee, 
arise," etc. (Mark ii. 11). Next it is to be observed that 
He claimed the right to forgive sins, and justified His 
claim on the ground that He was the Son of Man, 
when His critics accused him of blasphemy in putting 
it forth (ver. 10). He offered a. gracious invitation on 
condition of a personal relation with Himself, such 
as we more often meet with in the fourth Gk)spel, when 
He called the labouring and heavy laden to Himself, 
and promised them rest if they would take His yoke 
upon them, and this immediately after speaking of 
His close and unparalleled intimacy with His Father 
(Matt. xi. 27-30). In His parable of the Sheep 
and the Goats He describes Himself as the Son of 
Man coming with attendant angels, and sitting on the 
throne of His glory, while all the nations are gathered 
before Him for judgment; that is to say, He is to 
come as the Judge of all mankind,. Gentile as well as 
Jewish, heathen as well as Christian (zzv. 31, 32). 



36 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Not only do the angels appear in His Messianic train, 
but in another case they are placed between Him and 
men in the scale of being — so high is His natural 
existence. He says, " Of that day or that hour 
knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither 
the Son, but the Father" (Mark xiii. 32). Here, 
after referring to " no one," Jesus next speaks of the 
angels, and only then names Himself, immediately 
before " the Father." He seems to claim nothing less 
than ubiquity when He says, " Where two or three 
are gathered together in My name, there am I in 
the midst of them " (Matt, xviii. 20), and after His 
resurrection He promises His continual presence in 
the Church (xxviii. 20). 

On the other hand. He sets certain bounds to these 
prerogatives. He speaks of limitations to His know- 
ledge (Mark xiii. 32) and His authority (x. 40); 
He repudiates the idea of absolute goodness, as 
that idea might be ascribed to God — Le., the idea 
of self -originating, underived goodness (x. 18); He 
claims to work His miracles by " the Spirit of God " 
(Matt. xii. 28) or " the finger of God " (Luke xi. 20) ; 
He says, " All things have been delivered unto Me of 
My Father" (Matt. xi. 27) — owning to a boundless 
heritage, but ascribing this to the gift of His Fathei- ; 
He confesses a divergence between His will and that 
of His Father (Mark xiv. 36) ; He prays in a spirit 
of dependence. Plainly these are real limitations; 
but it is to be remembered that they are all confined 
to the lifetime of our Lord on earth. 

It is with respect to its representation of the 
person of Christ Himself that the Gospel of St. John 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 37 

appears to differ most widely from the Synoptics. 
In the three first narratives otir Lord seems to 
a large extent to retire behind His message, but in 
the later-written work He speaks very much more 
about Himself. Then the early reticence concerning 
His Messiahship, and the guarded and gradual reve- 
lation of His claims, which marked the Synoptic 
accounts, here appear to give place to a more public 
confession from the beginning ; so that we miss the 
slow development of teaching on the subject. Lastly, 
we have lengthy discourses instead of picturesque 
parables and scattered sayings emrbedded in incidents. 
Two or three. considerations may help us to account 
for these startling differences, in some degree at least. 
In the first place, it is to be noted tbat the scenes of 
the discourses in St. John are as a rule unlike those 
of the Synoptic sayings. For the most part, St. John 
gives us conversations with individuals (e.^., with 
Nicodemus, with the Samaritan woman), or with the 
inner circle of disciples, in both of which cases our 
Lord might speak more personally than in preaching 
to the crowd; at other times we have reports of 
arguments with unfriendly critics, who would natu- 
rally force the discussion to the question of His own 
claims. But there are also instances of a similar 
style of teaching carried on in public {e.g., John vi.). 
Now we must recollect that none of the Evangelists 
attempt anything approaching a complete biography 
of Jesus Christ. They all give but a few selected 
scenes in their brief pamphlets. St. John tells us 
what his object was — viz., to lead to faith in Christ 
(xx. 31). With such an end in view, it was natural 



38 THE THEOLOGY OF 

that he should select those reminiscences which were 
most directly concerned with the person of his Master. 
Therefore, it is only just and reasonable to suppose 
that he did not aim at giving average specimens of 
the words of Christ on the whole round of subjects 
treated by the great Teacher — especially as other 
topics were represented by the earlier Gospels, with 
which he was acquainted. His confessed aim would 
directly lead him to gather up the Christological 
discourses and arguments. Still, all this will not 
wholly account for the difference of style and the 
great increase of emphasis on the personal claims of 
Christ, which stand forth as the most marked and 
original features of the fourth Gospel. Is it not 
evident that if St. John moulded the ideas which 
he had gained from Christ in the forms of his own 
meditation, he would be likely to do this most freely 
in his treatment of thoughts concerning the person 
of his Lord, because here his affections would be most 
warmly stirred ? But this only means that if Christ 
taught by His life and character and action as well 
as by His words, the total impression of His repre- 
sentation of Himself in all these varied ways is that 
which would be felt by His most intimate and sym- 
pathetic disciple. That is what St. John gives us. 
It is really th^* most perfect self-revelation of the 
heart of Christ. 

When we turn from the question of form to that 
of substance, the difference between St. John and the 
Synoptics is less striking. In the fourth Gospel, as 
in the other narratives, our Lord admits Himself to 
be the Jewish Messiah, uses the title " Son of Man," 



THE NE\y TESTAMENT 39 

and also owns His Divine Sonship. Here, too, He 
speaks of distinct limitations on His earthly powers 
and privileges. He repudiates the charge of His 
enemies that He makes Himself equal with God 
(John^v. 18, 19) ; He takes a subordinate position 
by saying He was sent by God (ver. 38); He only 
teaches that which He heard from God (viii. 40) ; He 
can do nothing of Himself, but only does what He 
sees the Father doing (v. 19). Such sayings point to 
quite as much subordination during the earthly life of 
our Lord as is indicated by any in the Synoptics. 

On the other hand, the accentuation of the Divine 
nature and exalted functions of our Lord is here 
most distinct. The following points may be noted 
in particular : — 

1. The idea of Divine Sonship which is admitted 
into the Synoptics is much more prominent in the 
fourth Gospel. Jesus here very frequently refers to 
Himself as simply "the Son" in His relation to 
God, whom He names "the Father." The expression 
" only begotten Son " occurs four times in the Gospel ; 
but in each case it is in the descriptive language of 
the Evangelist, not in the speeches of Christ. Follow- 
ing our Lord's own teaching, we learn that as the 
Son Jesus is in the closest fellowship with His Father, 
He is one with the Father (x. 30). To see Him is 
to see the Father (xiv. 9). This is quite in harmony 
with Matt. xi. 27; but the wealth of references to 
the close intimacy existing between the Son and the 
Father accentuates the conception of the Divinity of 
our Lord in a degree that is peculiar to the Gospel 
of St. John, 



40 THE THEOLOGY OF 

2. In the fourth Gospel Jesus speaks much more 
frequently of His own person as the source of salva- 
tion. It is not now to the gospel, or to the kingdom, 
but to Christ Himself that we are to look for the 
highest blessing. He gives the water of life (iv. 14; 
vii. 37), He is the Bread of life (vi. 48-58), the 
Light of the world (viii. 12), the one Way to the 
Father (xiv. 6), the Door of the sheepfold (x. 9), the 
Good Shepherd (ver. 11), the Vine in living union 
with which His disciples flourish as fruitful branches, 
separated from which they wither and perish (xv. 1-7). 
These and similar ideas with which the Gospel teems 
give it its highest value in the self -revelation of Christ 
as the very centre and source of the whole life and 
energy of His people. They are not contradictory to 
anything in the Synoptics ; they are even anticipated 
by the invitation to the heavy-laden to come to Christ 
for rest, and by the representation of His body and 
blood in the Last Supper as given to Christians like 
bread and wine for the food of their very life. But 
they are immensely more frequent and prominent, 
and they are worked out much more in detail, in 
St. John's version of our Lord's teaching. 

3. St. John appears to contribute a distinct addition 
to the teaching of Christ concerning Himself in the 
Synoptics, in recording utterances that point to our 
Lord's pre-existence. The passages in which Jesus 
speaks of Himself as coming from the Father, and 
from heaven, may not distinctly teach this truth, 
because somewhat similar passages may be found in 
connection with the origin of godly men (e.^., compare 
viii, 33 with xv. 19 and xvii. 14). And yet the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 41 

frequent allusions to His Divine origin and the 
weight attached to it clearly point to something in 
the experience of Christ which is far above what 
good men enjoy in deriving their spiritual life from 
God. Moreover, some passages are less ambiguous. 
Thus in John xvii. 5 Jesus speaks of the glory which 
He had with the Father before the world was. Wendt 
thinks that this only means that the glory itself 
existed from eternity in readiness for the future 
Messiah.* But Jesus said He " had it " (t^ ^^ y ^^X^^) 
— an expression which certainly implies His personal 
existence. Then, in a discussion with the Jews, Jesus 
makes the astounding assertion, " Before Abraham 
was, I am" (John viii. 57). Wendt thinks that 
His existence before Abraham was only "in the 
Spirit of God, in the thoughts, determinations, and 
promises of God";t and Beyschlag maintains that 
Jesus was speaking only of the pre-existence of 
" The Idea," and he justifies his view by a reference 
to the Platonic doctrine of the real existence of ideas. J 
But if Chiist spoke these words at all, is it to be 
supposed that His hearers, Jews of Palestine with 
most concrete modes of thought, would have under- 
stood Him in any such sense? And the words are 
so startling and incisive that they seem to bear the 
stamp of a genuine recollection by the Apostle. 

♦ Der Inlialt der Lehre Jesu^ p. 470. 

t lUd. 

X NeutestamentlicJie Theologies vol. i., p. 247. 



42 THE THEOLOGY OF 



III. THE EEVELATION OF GOD 

Jesus claimed to be possessed of a unique know- 
ledge of God, which He alone could communicate 
to the world (Luke x. 22). This claim was 
altogether in accordance with His primary mission 
of establishing the kingdom of heaven on earth, 
because in doing so He had to bring men into 
closer relations with God, its Head. Yet, as we 
have seen, it was not at all His method to convey 
new knowledge in the form of definite propositions, 
and certainly any such thing would have been quite 
out of place with a revelation of the spiritual world. 
Jesus aimed at revealing the centre of God, not 
His circumference, which indeed does not exist with 
an infinite being, and therefore cannot possibly be 
described. It is the heart of God that Christ makes 
known, and therefore we must not ask Him for a 
formal addition to the list of Divine attributes as 
these are detailed by systematic theologians. Such 
knowledge as Christ gives is perceived by those who 
are in sympathy with Him. It is like a man's 
knowledge of his mother. It cannot be set forth 
in words. All we can define is its effects. 

Dealing with these external facts, we see that our 
Lord accepted the Old Testament teaching about 
God for the basis of His own representations — 
the Hebrew monotheism as not only opposed to 
polytheism and idolatry, but as opposed to the 
dualism which admits either matter or a spirit of 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 43 

evil to be in some respects co-ordinate with God, and 
also — what is perhaps even more significant in the 
Old Testament — the lofty moral character of God, 
His supreme righteousness, His. abhorrence of sin. 
Even what is most original in our Ix)rd*s teaching 
about Grod is not absolutely new when regarded in a 
hard, verbal way. It has its roots in older teaching ; 
it is the development of ideas of earlier revelation. 
But to call it a development is to say something 
of moment. Jesus altered the proportion of truths, 
exalting and expanding what had been previously 
neglected, bringing to the foreground what had been 
left in the dim distance and often hidden by less 
essential though more readily grasped ideas. 

It is as true as it is obvious that our Lord^a 
revelation of God centres in His wonderful teaching 
about the Divine Fatherhood. Now in some, degree 
the Fatherhood of God is a truth widely perceived 
by men. It is recognised by Homer, who describes 
Zeus as the " father of gods and men." In the Old 
Testament it frequently recurs, though usually with 
two limitations : first, it is connected with Israel, 
not with the whole human race {e.g., Hos. xi. 1) ; 
second, for the most part it is applied to the nation 
as a corporate unit, not to individuals {e.g., Jer. 
xxxi. 20), or if to any individual, to the divinely 
anointed king (2 Sam. vii. 14). Later, the fatherly 
relation of God to all individual Israelites is seen, and 
this idea registers a great advance {e.g., Mai. ii. 10). 
Thus the Wisdom of Solomon (ii. 18) calls the just man 
" the son of God." Nevertheless, in the Old Testament 
and in Jewish thought generally the supreme kingship, 



44 THE THEOLOGY OF 

the awful majesty of God predominates, and the 
Fatherhood is but subsidiary and only occasionally 
perceived at all. Jesus reverses the order, and sets 
the Fatherhood of God in the first place, as that 
which is most essential, determining everything else. 
Thus, according to our Lord's revelation, the very 
authority and government of God are fatherly, and the 
exercise of the Divine functions of ruling and judging 
are determined by the Divine Fatherhood. This does 
not mean any weakening of those functions ; to 
suppose that it could do so is to entertain the most 
unworthy notion of fatherhood. No justice can be 
so exact, no righteousness so exalted, no chastisement 
so searching, as the justice and righteousness and 
chastisement exercised by a perfect father in the 
administration of his family. But then, behind all 
is the father's heart, which leads him to do every- 
thing, not merely for the sake of administering law 
magisterially, much less only to exercise his own 
sovereignty — although he is sovereign, and although 
he does maintain law — but with this end in view, that 
he may throughout promote the highest good of his 
children. 

In particular two or three features of our Lord's 
portraiture of the Fatherhood of God should be 
considered. 

Clearly it suggests the most intimate relationship. 
Nothing is more painfully evident in later Judaism 
than the ever- widening gulf between God and the 
world, which originated in a well-meant attempt 
to exalt the Creator above the creation in abhor- 
rence of heathen i pantheism, but which resulted in 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 45 

a cold, droary theism. The intermediate space was 
peopled with angels, who discharged the functions 
of Providence, because God was too exalted to come 
into immediate contact with man. On man's part 
formal acts of worship, regarded as meritorious on 
theii' own account, were substituted for the Kving 
communion of the soul with God, now made impos- ^ 
sible by the vast separation between man and his 
Maker. All this Christ abolished, bringing men and 
women into closest contact with God, as members of 
Grod's family, as God's own children, and encouraging 
the utmost freedom of access to God in prayer and 
truat. This was one of the most revolutionary 
elements in the teaching of Christ. It gave His 
disciples a new heaven and a new earth — a heaven 
brought near from beyond the skies, an earth no 
longer God-deserted, but filled with God's presence. 
If we ask what attribute of the Divine Fatherhood 
Christ made most prominent, the answer must be 
that this was His love for His children. It is just to 
recollect that Jesus was speaking to Jews who already 
recognised the rectoral relationship of God to man. 
Had He been addressing light-hearted Greeks who did 
not sufficiently reverence authority in religion, no 
doubt He would have dwelt more on this characteristic. 
He presupposes the Old Testament.* Still, with 
Christ evidently the Father's care for His children 
is the leading thought about God; this lies behind 

* therefore the Christian missionary to the heathen must 
take the Old Testament in his hand, as well as the New ; the 
law and the prophets, as well as Christ ; and this even to give 
a fair representation of the teaching of Christ. 



46 THE THEOLOGY OF 

and determines all elee. The very hairs of our head 
are all numbered by God. If He clothes the open 
fields with beaiity, and feeds the repulsive ravens, 
and watches over the cheap sparrows, much more 
will He provide for His children (Luke xii. 6, 24, 27). 
He is the one "Good" (Mark x. 18), and His good- 
ness is seen chiefly in His kindness. If we, being evil, 
know how to give good things to our children, much 
more will God, who is not evil, not an imperfect 
father, give good things to them that ask Him 
(Matt, vii 11). Accordingly, to be perfect like God is 
to love oiu: enemies (v. 43-8), which must mean 
that the crown of Gk)d's perfection is His love to His 
enemies. 

Another trait of Christ's portrait of Divine Father- 
hood is its universality. Most of our Lord's words 
concerning the Fatherhood of God are addressed to 
His own disciples, and therefore to those who are 
already brought into happy relations of reconciliation 
with God. Moreover, He speaks of a certain condi- 
tion of conduct being necessary — "that ye may be 
the children of your Father which is in heaven" 
(Matt. V. 45). Similarly He owns those who do the 
will of God as His own brothers and sisters, etc. 
(Mark iii. 35), which of course implies that He could 
not regard other people in the same light. On the 
other hand, all that He says of the nature and 
character of God suggests a breadth of Fatherhood 
which cannot be confined to a section of mankind. 
The whole idea of the gospel springs from that 
conception of God's love to lost and fallen men 
which is just an outcome of His fatherly heart. Our 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 47 

Lord's description of God's indiscriminate kindness in 
providence is in accordance with the universality of 
His Fatherhood — " for He maketh His sun to rise 
on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the 
just and the unjust " (Matt. v. 45). The parable 
of the Prodigal Son presents the same idea most 
pointedly, especially when we consider that the 
immediate occasion of that parable was the harsh 
narrowness of the Pharisees who objected to Christ's 
freedom of brotherly intercourse with persons of ill- 
repute (Luke XV. 1, 2). These two positions may be 
easily reconciled. God is the Father of all mankind, 
loving all, kind to all, and calling all to Himself 
in the gospel. But His disobedient children do not 
enjoy the fatherly relationship excepting in their 
share of the general providence of God, and in the 
fact that it is open to them to have higher privileges. 
The prodigal son must come to himself before the 
fact that he has a father can mean anything to him. 
In his abandoned state he is worse ofif than the 
hirelings at home, and therefore practically no longer 
a son — lost, dead. His return is his coming back to 
the experiences of sonship. 

In our Lord's revelation of God in the fourth 
Gospel, the most striking thing is a fact apparent 
also in the Synoptics, but less prominently than here — 
viz., that the revelation is in the person and charac- 
ter of Christ Himself. Not only does Jesus say, " He 
that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" (John 
2dv. 9), but He makes us perceive the truth of His 
words. Our highest conception of God is just the 
character of Christ. Hence, quite apart from any 



48 THE THEOLOGY OF 

words about God, by simply living among us and 
manifesting His own thoughts and springs of action, 
Jesus gives us the highest revelation of Divinity, 
because He gives us the most perfect exhibition of 
supreme goodness. If God is the One Good, as we 
have learnt in the Synoptics, Christ must be the 
most complete revelation of God, because in Christ 
we perceive the most exalted type of goodness ever 
witnessed on earth. 

Coming to details, it is to be noticed that Jesus 
only once in the fourth Gospel speaks of God as " your 
Father" (xx. 17). But He often uses the expression 
"the Father." No doubt this agrees with the more 
prominent position of His own Sonship expressed by 
the corresponding phrase "the Son." Still, the phrase 
also points to the idea of Fatherhood itself as 
essential to God, and it does so in that more abstract 
style which is characteristic of St. John's Gospel. 

Another thought is that of the essential spirituality 
of God to which our Tx^rd directs the attention of the 
woman at the well by declaring emphatically, "God 
is Spirit " (iv. 24). Therefore He can only be wor- 
shipped in spirit and in truth. 

In marked contrast to the .rabbinical notion of 
the withdrawal of God into the heavens while the 
world is administered by angels, we have the idea of 
the immanence of God, and His present activity in 
the universe, suggested by the words, "My Father 
worketh even until now, and I work " (v. 17). 

It has been asserted that the fourth Gospel em- 
bodies a system of dualism which can be traced 
throughout in the conflict between light and 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 49 

darkness ; and this is said to be most apparent in the 
distinction between the children of Abraham and the 
children of the devil, brought forward by our Lord 
in chap. viii. But to press the latter antithesis so as 
to make it represent a radical opposition of being and 
origin is to distort the text. The contrast of parentage 
is not between God and Satan, but between Abraham 
and Satan — here the dualism breaks down at once. 
Besides, we have not two races set in conflict. Though 
Abraham was regarded as the head of a specially 
privileged nation, nobody pretended that all who 
were not Jews had sprung from Satan. 

Plainly our Lord's whole argument deals with 
moral characteristics. They are children of the devil 
who are under his influence, assimilated to his like- 
ness, members of his household. John the Baptist's 
expression " Generation of vipers " is somewhat 
analogous. That the universal Fatherhood of God 
cannot be here excluded should be apparent when 
we consider the unlimited offers of grace which are so 
characteristic of this gospel — unless we are to believe 
with Luther that all such appeals in Scripture are 
uttered ironically ! 

IV. THE GOSPEL 

The subject of the preaching of our Lord was 
designated in the earliest records "The Gospel {to 
evayytXtov) of God " (Mark i. 14), and "The Gospel 
of the Kingdom" (Matt. iv. 23). On His visit to 
the synagogue at -Nazareth Jesus read an ancient 
prophecy which contains the words "The Spirit of 

4 



50 THE THEOLOGY OF 

the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me to 
declare good tidings (€vayy€Xto-ao-^ai) to the poor" 
(Luke iv. 18), and applied it to His own message; 
and in giving His commission to the Apostles He told 
them that "The Gospel" must be preached to all 
nations (Mark xiii. 10). It is in accordance with this 
description of the Christian message that the Sermon 
on the Mount opens with Beatitudes. The people of 
Galilee were quick to discover that Jesus was bringing 
good tidings to them, for they flocked to Him and 
" heard Him gladly." The joyousness of His disciples 
was positively offensive to Pharisees, who thought 
that it was not becoming for religious people to be 
very happy (Mark ii. 18). No doubt a revelation of 
tiuth, whatever it is, must bring some satisfaction 
to perplexed souls in search of light; but evidently 
the description of a message as " good tidings " and 
the reception of it with great and general delight 
point to something in the contents of the message 
which is in itself most pleasing. Now this is not 
apparent in John the Baptist's preaching, which 
threatens judgment and destruction* in the dreadful 
day of the Lord after the manner of his favourite 
prophet Malachi; and even the ethical teaching of 
Jesus, while it entrances us with its purity and 
elevation, is so searching and exacting — ^requiring a 
righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the 
most correct people, such as scribes and Pharisees — 
that taken by itself it would seem to impose a heavier 
burden than that of the law, and therefore could 
scarcely be regarded as a gospel. It is necessary to 
see that there is another side to the teaching of Christ, 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 51 

which explains the ease of His yoke and the lightness 
of His burden. When this is perceived it becomes 
apparent that the good tidings are not in conflict with 
the severe ethics, but that they even include the 
moral ideal, although they put this on an entirely 
new foundation. How, then, may the contents of 
the preaching of Christ and His Apostles be emphatic- 
ally denominated " good news " ] 

In the first place, it must be repeated,* Christ re- 
garded the announcement of the approaching advent 
of the kingdom of God as itself good news. This was 
obviously so with the Jewish expectation of material 
prosperity. But Jesus would have it seen that there 
was even more cause for gladness in the coming of the 
kingdom in the spiritual might and glory which He 
ascribed to it. So He spoke of the kingdom itself as a 
treasury, as a marriage feast. This must mean that it 
is a good thing for the world that the rule of God is to be 
established in willing hearts. While people imagined 
political oppression, poverty, and pain to be the gi^eat 
evils from which the new age would liberate them, Jesus 
considered that tKe root evil was rebellion against the 
will of God. This is why the full coming of God's 
kingdom in the perfect doing of God's will on earth 
as it is done in heaven was in His teaching the 
summum honum. With this we must associate 
His revelation of God as the Father. Our view of 
the desirability of the privilege of citizenship in a 
kingdom the law of which is nothing less than the 
absolute will of the sovereign must depend on our 

idea of the character of the king. A kingdom of 
* See p. 24, 



52 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Moloch would be an inferno. The kingdom of God 
is to be a paradise, just because God is a perfectly 
good Father. Thus, by His revelation of God, Jesus 
made it apparent that the proclamation of the advent 
of the kingdom of God was the declaration of good 
tidings. Moreover, when His disciples began to per- 
ceive the nature of His Messiahship, side by side with 
the wonderful attractiveness of His own pure, perfectly 
unselfish, and most kind life and character, they came 
to know the kingdom as it was embodied in Christ 
Himself, and thus it was revealed to them in the 
most winsome form. Seeing the kingdom in Christ 
we perceive that it is most attractive. 

But our Lord definitely promised certain distinctive 
boons. While with the proclamation of the kingdom 
He showed that on man's side repentance was 
necessary, on His own side He oflFered forgiveness. 
Though this offer is not stated in the meagre reports 
of the commencement of our Lord's ministry, it 
must have been present from the beginning, because 
it is one of the essential characteristics of that 
teaching which is most fully recorded. Thus, to 
the paralytic at Capernaum — who, according to the 
earliest account, seems to have had himself conveyed 
to Jesus in distress about his sins rather than in search 
of bodily health — our Lord pronounced immediate 
and full forgiveness ; and then, seeing that this daring 
utterance excited the first symptoms of opposition on 
the part of the scribes, Jesus, as the Son of Man, 
distinctly claimed authority on earth to forgive sins 
(Mark ii. 5, 10). It is in the Gospel according to St. 
Luke, however, that the teaching of Christ in regard 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 53 

to this subject is most fully expounded, and from that 
Gospel we may gather three great truths concerning 
forgiveness. 

The first is the universal need of forgiveness, 
shown especially in the case of the Pharisee and 
the Sinner (Luke xviii. 10-14). 

The second is the unlimited possibilities of forgive- 
ness. Jesus does not minimise sin or excuse it ; on 
the contrary, He shows it to be an unspeakably more 
horrible evil than men ever suspected. But He 
proclaims a forgiveness that is ample enough for 
all sin. Of the woman who is known as " a sinner,'* 
Jesus affirms that her sins are " many," but also that 
they are all " forgiven her " (Luke vii. 47). The 
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only excep- 
tion to the universal forgiveness, and evidently this 
cannot be so because the limit of grace is at last 
reached, but because to call good evil is to pervert the 
conscience so completely that repentance, which is the 
first condition of forgiveness, is necessarily rendered 
impossible to a person who deliberately does this. 

The third truth is the personal nature of forgive- 
ness, which is not merely the withholding of punish- 
ment or the cancelling of a debt, but in the heart of 
it a reconciliation with One whom we have grieved 
and wronged by our misconduct. This is made 
apparent in the parable of the Prodigal Son, whose 
pardon is seen in the welcome accorded to him by his 
father. That is to say, forgiveness goes straight to 
sin, rather than to its pains and penalties. The sin 
is buried in oblivion, and the penitent restored to the 
old status of communion with God. 



54 THE THEOLOGY OF 

It is to be observed, further, that Jesus not only 
connects penitence with pardon, but also assigns a 
man's forgiveness of his brother as an essential con- 
dition of God's forgiveness (Matt. vi. 14, 15). An 
irreconcilable temper towards a fellow-man excludes 
reconciliation with God.* 

In His discourse at Nazareth, when quoting from 
the prophecy concerning the good tidings, Jesus claims 
to fulfil the words that promise '* release to the 
captives " and " liberty to them that are bruised '' 
(Luke iv. 18). This is just what the oppressed Jews 
looked for in their Messianic deliverance from the 
Roman tyranny. Our Lord promises the boon in 
another form. Liberation from spiritual evil is most 
clearly set forth in the fourth Gospel, but the idea 
of it pervades the whole teaching of the Synoptics. 
It is powerfully suggested by all the miracles of 
healing. The word salvation (a-wrrjpia), which means, 
primarily, making sound or healthy, transfers to the 
spiritual realm the healing ministry which miracles 
illustrate in the physical. Jesus appeared as the 
Friend of sinners, not simply because He was sociable 
with them, but because He was their Physician ; and 
His sociability, which gave natural offence to Pharisees 
who had not discovered its motive, was one essential 
condition of His practical work in restoring the most 
abandoned characters to spiritual health. 

Jesus grievously disappointed the hopes of worldly- 

♦ That this is not an arbitrary condition is clear if we 
follow St. John when he says, " He that loveth not his brother 
whom he hath seen cannot love God whom he hath not seen " 
(I John iv. 20). 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 55 

minded Jews because He did not oflFer wealth and 
ease, but, on the contrary, hardships and persecutions, 
contumely and the cross (Mark viii. 34). Never- 
theless, He promised His disciples temporal blessings. 
He encouraged them to pray for daily bread (Matt, 
vi. 11) ; He bade them not be anxious about food and 
raiment, because their heavenly Father tnew their 
needs; and He told them that if they first sought 
the kingdom of God all other things would be added 
(ver. 33). It may seem that these separate lines of 
teaching do not agree. Two considerations, however, 
should remove the difficulty. First, Christ did not 
consider that many earthly things were necessary 
or even beneficial. Wealth He regarded as a danger 
and a snare, and the rich man as an object of pity 
rather than of envy. Very few earthly things are 
really needed. It is daily bread for which we are to 
pray — ^not stores for the future, and not luxuries. 
Yet much of the anxiety and disappointment of life 
is simply concerned with unnecessary desires for these 
things. Second, Christ moved in a society in which, 
it would seem, men could generally obtain a fair 
livelihood, although the many references to poverty 
-and distress in the New Testament testify to the 
social troubles that always accompany such political 
disturbances as were not infrequent in Galilee in the 
first century. He was not contemplating the absolute 
breakdown of civilisation which we witness in modern 
cities, where ghastly misery is hidden behind the pomp 
of wealth and splendour. But, then, if His teachings 
were honestly applied to social questions to-day, this 
disgrace to Christendom would disappear. When the 



56 THE THEOLOGY OF 

kingdom of heaven is fully established life on earth 
must be cheerful and contented. 

One element in the dehverance brought by Christ 
was intended to help His fellow-countrymen in regard 
to a peculiar trouble of their religious life. This was 
liberation from the yoke of rabbinical casuistry, a 
galling yoke which He indignantly condemned when 
He saw heartless pretenders making use of the influ- 
ence gained by official position or saintly reputation 
to bind on their meek pupils burdens which they 
themselves would not so much as touch with their 
fingers (Luke xi. 46). To a people labouring and 
heavy laden with such gratuitous obligations He 
offered the restfulness that accompanied His yoke. 
This was easy not because its requirements were small 
— ^they were greater than those of the scribes and 
Pharisees — but because they did not consist in irri- 
tating external performances. In their very breadth 
and elevation they were capable of exercising an 
exhilarating influence over the people who submitted 
to them, and they could be readily observed in the 
inspiring presence of their Author. The permanent 
element in our Lord's teaching which corresponds to 
this liberation of the Jews from rabbinism is the 
universal offer of spiritual liberty, so that the disciple 
of Christ is always free to use his own judgment in 
the application of the large principles he has received 
from his Master to the details of daily conduct. 

Above all these specific boons there is one supremely 
glorious blessing promised by Christ to His followers, 
the greatest of all conceivable personal possessions — 
the gift of eternal life ; and with this is connected the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 57 

promise of rewards to the faithful. But these things 
belong to eschatology, which must be considered in a 
subsequent section. 

The main ideas of the teaching of our Lord on these 
subjects in the Synoptics are confirmed by St. John. 
The forgiveness of sins, deliverance from evil — spiritual 
and temporal, and eternal life, are all offered in the 
fourth Gospel. But fresh light is thrown on some of 
these points, and others less apparent in the Synoptics 
are made clear. 

Freedom from the slavery of sin, vividly suggested 
in the Synoptics by the whole mission and work of 
Christ, is clearly expounded in John. It is the one 
kind of liberty that Christ is represented as bringing. 
The captives are the slaves of sin, for he who gives 
way to sin makes sin his master. The liberation is 
breaking Satan's yoke and delivering men from the 
power of sin (John viii. 31-4). 

In the Synoptics eternal life usually appears as a 
future boon ; in the fourth Gospel it is a present pos- 
session (e.^r., V. 24), although even here it occasionally 
takes its old place among the hopes of the future 
(iv. 14, 36 ; vi. 27 ; xi. 25). We may compare this 
difference of treatment with the distinctive ways of 
regarding the kingdom of God, even in the Synoptics, 
as both present and future.* The life begins now on 
earth, but it survives death, and it reaches out into 
eternity. This may be illustrated by the words of 
Jesus addressed to Martha of Bethany, in which He 
says that whoever trusts in Him will never die (xi. 26). 
But if it is a present possession, the life is more than 
* Pages 22, 23. 



68 THE THEOLOGY OF 

the gift of immortality. The promise of eternal life 
cannot mean simply that they who receive it will not 
be annihilated in the future. This promise must 
refer to something in itself different from the animal 
life. According to His custom our Lord refrains from 
defining the phrase.* He leaves us to discover His 
meaning in the course of His teaching, and in doing 
so we are led to see that He is directing our minds to 
the thought of the life of the soul in contact with 
God in which the higher nature is quickened into 
activity — i.e., a real present spiritual life. 

Finally, we have the promises of the Paraclete. 
John the Baptist predicted that the coming Christ 
would baptise with the Spirit ; and, according to 
St. Luke, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit was given 
hy God in answer to prayer (Luke xi. 13), and was 
indeed the source of His own power (xii. 12). In His 
last discourse He declares that after a little while He 
will come again (John xvi. 16), having previously 
promised that He would send another Comforter, the 
Spirit of truth (xiv. 16). The one phrase is some- 
times taken to refer to our Lord's resurrection, and 
the other to the Pentecostal gift, while some of 
Christ's expressions seem to be more appropriate to 
the Second Advent {e.g,y xiv. 3). But it is not in 
harmony with the tone of this discourse for sharp 
distinctions to be drawn, and we must remember that 
as yet no definition of the Trinity had been attempted. 
It is more congenial to the circumstances not to 

♦ John xvii. 3 is not a definition, but a description of the 
meaDs through which eternal life is received. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 59 

separate the mission of the Spirit from the spiritual 
presence of Christ among His people. 

Jesus seems to be contemplating this abiding pre- 
sence of Himself as really the principal consequence 
of His return (e.g,^ xiv. l9). He looks beyond the 
resurrection, and His brief, transient, eaithly mani- 
festations of Himself to a few disciples, to the much 
greater consequences of His dwelling perpetually in 
the Church. This seems to blend with the coming of 
the Spirit. Beyschlag points out that here, however, 
a limited sphere is assigned to the Spirit.* (1) The 
Spirit's influence is on earth ; Chiist is also the 
Mediator in heaven. (2) The Spirit does not give 
new truth, but only calls to mind the teaching of 
Christ (xvi. 13, 14). (3) The operation of the Spirit 
is here limited to truth-teaching, while Christ is the 
source of life, as is shown in the image of the vine. 
On the other hand, it is important to observe that our 
Lord does not expressly lay down any limits for the 
sphere and operation of the Spirit. He simply names 
certain functions which were appropriate to His 
immediate aim in preparing the disciples for His 
departure. 

V. REDEMPTION 

The fact that Jesus Christ came proclaiming a 
gospel is itself an indication that He did not expect 
men to work out their own redemption by service, or 
sacrifice, or any other meritorious action; it shows 

* NentestamentlicJie Theologie^ vol. i., pp. 274-7. 



60 THE THEOLOGY OF 

that He regarded the salvation of the world as a 
Divine act^-one springing from God's love, mani- 
festing His free favour, and realising itself in His 
almighty energy. A prophet's appeal to the con- 
science is a wholesome message, but we can scarcely 
call it a gospel. The good news goes further, as we 
have seen, and tells of gifts and blessings which Grod 
is prepared to bestow. Thus we are brought to con- 
sider th« Divine source and process of redemption. 

Nothing is more characteristic of the teaching of 
our Lord than His revelation that salvation directly 
flows out of the illimitable goodness of God. This is 
most strikingly apparent when it is considered in its 
contrast to the course recommended by the Jewish 
teachers of His day, who directed anxious souls to 
almsgiving, fasting, ablutions, formal prayers, Sabbath 
observance, and other irksome mechanical perform- 
ances. In sharp opposition to all these recommenda- 
tions Jesus shows that God has concerned Himself 
to recover His lost children. His pure fatherly love. 
His deep compassion, His effective energy — these are 
the foundations of the kingdom of God. Our Lord 
says that the immediate purpose of His own mission 
is to seek and to save them that are lost, like a 
shepherd rescuing wandering sheep (Matt, xviii. 
11-13). His work is compared to the action of the 
woman who will light a lamp and sweep her house 
in search of a single coin (Luke xv. 8-10). He is 
the Physician whose sole business is with the sick 
(Mark ii. 17). Here we see not only the generous 
forgiveness that welcomes a penitent, but also active 
exertion in searching him out and restoring him. In 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 61 

this, the central work of His life-mission, Jesus Christ 
reveals a power which counteracts the tendency that 
the study of nature in our own day has shown to be 
at work in all regions of life. While the doctrine 
of evolution by the survival of the fittest may be a 
delightful creed for the successful, it is a sentence of 
doom on the unfortunate. Now our Lord comes to 
reverse failure. Of Him we read the prophecy, " A 
bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax 
shall He not quench " (Matt. xii. 20). 

Turning to consider our Lord's revelation of the 
means by which He carried out His saving work, if we 
were to judge by the time and trouble He devoted to 
preaching and teaching, as well as by the large place 
His public and private instruction occupies in the 
Gospels, we should conclude that this was His chief 
work. He first appears as a Preacher proclaiming the 
gospel (loypvo-oro)!/), and then as a Teacher explaining 
truth to His disciples (SiSao-Kwi/). He was known 
among His contemporaries by the name " Teacher " 
(StSao-KoXos, e,g., Mark x. 17) — i.e., as a Rabbi. The 
freshness of His ideas arrested attention, and compelled 
His hearers to exclaim with amazement, "What is 
this? A new teaching" (i. 27). We cannot suppose 
that Christ's teaching had no connection with the great 
work of redemption. Assuredly it was an instrument 
for seeking and saving the lost, by directing men to 
right views of themselves and God, by leading them 
to a perception of the requirements of righteousness 
and the guilt of sin, to a consciousness of the forgiving 
mercy of God and the claims and privileges of His 
kingdom. Thus Christ was sowing the seed of life 



62 THE THEOLOGY OF 

by means of teachiDg, as the parable of the Sower 
showed (Mark iv. 20). Next to preaching and teach- 
ing Jesus was most actively employed in healing the 
sick. The Gospels bring out the intimate connection 
between His words and His works, showing over and 
over again how a miracle was the occasion of some 
discussion with our Lord's critics or some pregnant 
utterance of His own.* It does not appear that the 
leading motive of Jesus in healing the sick was to 
furnish materials for Christian evidences. When 
asked for a supernatural portent He refused to supply 
it (Matt. xii. 38, 39). He never made any display of 
His miracles; on the contrary, He endeavoured to 
suppress the fame of them (e.^., Mark i. 43). So far 
was He from exhibiting a miracle to induce faith, that 
He required faith as the condition of performing one 
(ix. 23, 24). The Evangelists assign an entirely 
different motive for His action in saying that He 
healed the sick because "He was moved with com- 
passion " {e.g.y Matt. ix. 36). This simple, touching 
statement, taken in connection with the corresponding 
character of the miracles, casts a flood of light on the 
main purpose of our Lord's ministry. In His verbal 
teaching He mingled severity and gentleness with an 
almost Rembrandtesque sharpness of antithesis of 



* This is very apparent in St. Luke, who is most careful to 
connect the sayings of Christ with the incidents out of which 
they arise, while St. Matthew more often groups them in con- 
nected discourses, and St. Mark reports fewer of them. Hence 
we may infer that, on the whole, the third Gospel gives us a 
more primitive version of Christ's sayings than the first — the 
earliest account of all being St. Mark's, 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 63 

light and shade. But this contrast was wholly miss- 
ing from His works. For the sick and suffering He 
had nothing but compassion. Without exception His 
miracles are deeds of pure kindness. Now it is clear 
that such works, though not primarily intended to 
serve a didactic purpose, were in fact parables vividly 
illustrative of the healing of souls. At the same time^ 
our Lord made them serve in His direct assault on the 
kingdom of darkness (Luke x. 18). They show that 
His redeeming work is intended to ameliorate the 
temporal, physical condition of men as well as their 
spiritual nature. Therefore it is legitimate to infer 
from them that as God gave miracles to the first 
century, so He has given science to the nineteenth 
century, i.e., to be an instrument for the redemption 
of man, and therefore that sanitation and medical 
missions should be regarded as integral parts of 
Christian service. 

In the next place it is to be observed that, though 
we read less of our Lord's personal claims in the 
Synoptics than in the fourth Gospel, what is recorded 
there is most emphatic ; the whole picture of the life 
of Christ reveals the unique spell of His personality, 
and makes it evident to us that His life and character 
are at the root of His redeeming work. He evidently 
refers to Himself as the robber of Satan who binds 
the strong man and spoils his house (Mark iii. 27). 
It is in His name that the demons are subject to 
His disciples ; and on hearing of the success of the 
seventy Jesus exclaims, " I beheld Satan falling as 
lightning from heaven," and then He adds that He 
has given them authority " over all the power of the 



64 THE THEOLOGY OF 

enemy" (Luke x. 17-20). On the same occasion He 
invites the labouring and heavy-laden to come to Him 
for rest (Matt. xi. 28). 

It is apparent to every reader of the New Testa- 
ment that the purpose of the death of Christ does 
not take the pre-eminence in His own teaching which 
it assumes in that of St. Paul. In regard to this 
subject more perhaps than in regard to any other we 
may see a development of doctrine in the New Testa- 
ment. But quite apart from the fact that Christian 
ideas are thus introduced by degrees, it is obvious 
that subsequent reflections on the Cross in the clear 
light of all its tragic circumstances are likely to be 
richer than anticipatory references to it in those 
early days when it only loomed on the horizon as 
a gradually emerging destiny of the future. Still, 
our Lord uttered some definite predictions about His 
approaching doom ; these wore scarcely grasped by 
His disciples, but to us they cannot Ibut be of 
profound interest. It is evident that there was a 
progressive distinctness in His teaching on this topic, 
corresponding, perhaps, to the progress of His own 
human consciousness respecting it. At first all was 
sunshine and hope ; but after opposition was roused, 
and as this grew ominously more and more deter- 
mined and virulent, it became clear to Him that 
there could be but one end if He would be true to 
the course He had chosen with a full conviction that 
it was in accordance with the will of God ; this end 
our Lord perceived and described with growing 
distinctness. The deepening shadow of the Cross was 
thus upon His path throughout His later ministry. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 65 

In speaking of His passion and death Jesus added 
fresh details each time He referred to the subject. 
But from His first announcement of it He always 
connected it with His supreme destiny. It was never 
regarded by Him as an accident, nor did He even 
treat it as a sheer calamity, like the murder of John 
the Baptist, or as simply the termination of His 
career. This is apparent from the first allusion to it, 
which occurred on the occasion of St. Peter's great 
confession at Csesarea Philippi, just after the crisis 
when the majority of the disciples had taken ofience 
and forsaken Jesus, and when His enemies had de- 
termined to suppress His work. The confession of 
His Messiahship afforded an occasion for enlighten- 
ing the faithful few on a terrible secret of the 
future, the possibility of which they had not yet 
imagined, because they could now bear the strain 
on their faith. They learnt to their horror that 
the Christ, whom they expected to redeem Israel, 
" must suffer many things " and " be killed " by the 
chief authorities of the nation. This was necessary. 
It was part of the destined mission of Christ. Why 
it was necessary, how it came to be an integral 
part of the Messianic mission, Jesus did not yet 
say. But it was much simply to annoimce that it 
must be. 

Once, however, and quite incidentally, as it seems, 
when rebuking a spirit of self-seeking in His 
disciples, our Lord describes His death as a ransom, 
saying, "Verily the Son of Man came not to be 
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His 
life a ransom for many" (Mark x. 45). 

5 



66 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Here He clearly announces a purpose in the 
surrender of His life. He gives His life. He could 
avoid the Cross, but will not do so. Thus there is 
a voluntary element in His death; It is not suicide, 
for He does not take His owu life; but He will not 
escape death at the cost of the renunciation of His 
mission. This purpose is to secure some good to 
others, to " many " — a word which does not point to 
a limitation, as though it were carefully distinguished 
from " all." The context shows that the contrast is 
with ad/ as a unit. Further, the idea of " ransom " 
signifies liberation on payment. The payment is 
Christ's life. What is the liberation? It is going 
too far to ask, To whom is the payment made ? for 
we always have to be careful not' to press the details 
of a metaphor beyond the point of comparison. Still, 
some bondage is clearly suggested. Elsewhere Christ 
refers to death as a power from which men seek 
to be freed (Mark viii. 36, 37); in St. John He 
distinctly describes the slavery of man to sin (John 
viii. 34) ; and in the Synoptics He frequently speaks 
of the world being under the power of Satan {e.g., 
Mark iii. 15 ; Luke xiii 16). Therefore presumably 
the deliverance will be from some such evil — death, 
or sin, or Satan. Seeing that our Lord leaves the 
phrase open, it is best for us to take it in its large 
comprehensiveness to mean deliverance from all evil 
— remembering that with Christ the root of evil, the 
one real evil, is sin. Then we read that this ransom 
is " instead of" (avrC) many, t.e., instead of the 
" many " paying it, which they cannot do ; or perhaps 
preferably " in exchange for many," so that they 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 67 

may be liberated in return for the expenditure of 
Christ's life. In all this our Lord does not say why 
it is necessary for Him to die in order that men 
may be set free. He simply states the fact. 

The most emphatic teaching on the connection 
between our redemption and the death of Christ 
may be drawn from the Lord's Supper. In insti- 
tuting the ordinance Jesus said, according to St. 
Luke, "This is My body, which is given for you*' 
(Luke xxii. 19), or, according to St. Paul, "This is 
My body, which is for you" (1 Cor. xi. 24).* In 
both cases the preposition virlp is used — plainly 
teaching that Christ was giving His body, i,e.^ giving 
Himself up to death, on behalf of His disciples, for 
their benefit. The words concerning the cup are 
more explicit. According to the two first Evan- 
gelists we read, " This is My blood of the covenant " 
(Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Mark xiv. 24). According to St. 
Luke and St. Paul, "This cup is the new covenant 
in My blood " (Luke xxii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xi. 25). The 
reference to the new covenant points to the prophecy 
of Jeremiah about a covenant which should be both 
more merciful in its prevision for pardon and more 
inward and spiritual in its principles than the Levi- 
tical law (Jer. xxxi. 31-4). Just such a covenant 
was found in the gospel of Christ, with its large 
offer of forgiveness on God's side and its character 
of inwardness in relation to human experience; and 
this identity was recognised in the early Church 

* Matthew follows Mark in giving only the words " This is 
My body," without the clause added in Luke and 1 Corinthians 
(Matt, xxvi, 23 ; Mark xiv. 22). 



68 THE THEOLOGY OF 

(Heb. viii. 10-13). The association of blood with 
the new covenant is evidently founded on a reference 
to the sacrifice which, according to the Pentateuch, 
ratified the ancient covenant, when the altar 
and the people were sprinkled with blood (Exod. 
xxiv. 3-8). Thus in all four accounts of the 
Lord's Supper Jesus Christ attributes a sacrificial 
character to His death. The narrative in Exodus 
shows that on the whole the analogy is that of the 
burnt-offering, the symbol of the self -dedication 
of the worshipper. The sprinkling of the blood of 
this offering was the ceremonial dedication of the 
Jews to the old covenant; the taking of the cup 
in the sacrament is the similar dedication of 
Christians to the new covenant. The death of Christ 
ratifies His covenant, and the participation in the 
cup suggests the personal share of the communicant 
in the covenant thus ratified. A further clause of 
deep significance is added by St. Matthew — a^z., 
" unto remission of sins " (Matt. xxvi. 28).* This 
plainly states that the death of Christ is designed 
to lead to forgiveness. It has been objected that 
the clause must be an addition by the Evangelist, or 
perhaps a result of reflection in the Church, because, 
it is said, elsewhere Christ never connects His death 
with the forgiveness of sin, but always represents 

* E/s &<l>€(rLP afmpTiu>if — the same phrase that St. Mark 
uses to characterise John's baptism of repentance (Mark i. 4) ; 
not that there Is any ground for treating these as two rival 
methods. On man*s side it is repentance that leads to 
forgiveness ; on Christ's side it is His death that really eflfects 
forgiveness. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 69 

the pardon of man to be a free act of God's fatherly- 
love, as, for example, in the case of the prodigal son. 
On the other hand, it was expressly declared that 
Jeremiah's new covenant was to be a covenant of 
forgiveness (Jer. xxxi. 34). Therefore, to ratify that 
covenant is directly to lead to the remission of sins. 
Moreover, Christ often claimed to bring forgiveness ; 
and we have seen that when He spoke of giving His 
life as a ransom the leading thought suggested would 
be that of deliverance from sin. Accordingly, even 
if the words were added by the Evangelist or 
his predecessors, they would be entirely in harmony 
with the other teaching of Christ. Under these 
circumstances, and considering how very rare are 
our Lord's references to His death, is it necessary 
to resort to any ingenious expedient to account 
for the fact that one of those instances somewhat 
anticipates the line of later apostolic teaching ? 

One more lesson of the Lord's Supper in relation 
to redemption may be noted here. The eating and 
drinking by the communicants suggest a personal par- 
ticipation in Christ by each individual Christian as the 
means of sustaining his very life. Here we approach 
ideas more fully expanded in the fourth Gospel. 

Lastly, it cannot be without some weighty bearings 
on His redeeming work that our Lord predicted His 
resurrection (Mark ix. 9, 10, 31 ; x. 34), for the 
prediction shows His prevision of victory, and a 
comparison of this prediction with His promises of 
an abiding presence may lead us to see that He 
regarded His resurrection as a step towards His 
spiritual indwelling in the Church. 



70 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Still, keeping to the teaching of Christ alone, we 
see that on this, as on other subjects, the fourth 
Evangelist agrees with the main positions of the 
Synoptics, although his language and method of 
treatment vary from the style of the earlier writers, 
especially in strongly emphasising the significance 
of the person of our Ijord. 

The importance of the word of Christ in regard 
to salvation is often insisted on in St. John's Gospel. 
The first step towards eternal life is to hear this word 
(v. 24) ; it is the truth revealed by Chidst that is 
to make men free (viii. 32) ; the disciples acknow- 
ledge that He has the words of eternal life (vi. 68). 

While the Synoptics plainly imply that Jesus Christ 
Himself is the centre of salvation — for in these records 
He appears historically as the living Saviour — that 
great truth is more directly stated and more fully 
described in the fourth Gospel. Chap. vi. in par- 
ticular sets it forth with startling force. Jesus there 
declares Himself to be the Bread of life, and announces 
that if any man eat of this bread he shall live for 
ever (ver. 51). Elsewhere, in the same Gospel, He 
teaches that He is the Light of the world, aiui that 
the way to avoid walking in darkness is to follow 
Him (viii. 12). When He is lifted up from the 
earth He will draw all men to Himself (xii. 32). 
The person of Christ is the object of faith (ver. 46), 
and to reject Him is to come under the condemnation 
of God (ver. 48). He concludes His last discourse 
by encouraging His disciples to be of good cheer, 
because He, their Lord and Saviour, has overcome 
the world (xvi. 33). 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 71 

The fourth Gospel gives marked prominence to our 
Lord's death. In the first place it shows that Jesus 
foresaw the event, and also the necessity for it. Thus, 
in the conversation occasioned by the information that 
certain Greeks wished to see Him, He exclaimed, 
" The hour is come that the Son of Man should be 
glorified. . . . Except a grain of wheat fall into the 
earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, 
it beareth much fruit" (xii. 23, 24). This appeal to 
the analogy of nature, and the words immediately 
following, " He that loveth his life loseth it," etc., 
show that our Lord regarded His death as something 
in accordance with a general principle that belongs 
to the constitution of nature, and that should be 
followed by men — viz., that death is necessary to life, 
that fruitful service depends on self-sacrifice. Then 
Christ said that He had authority to lay down His 
life and to take it again (x. 18). Therefore His 
death was not unavoidable ; it resulted from a volun- 
tary course of action on His part. He gave Himself 
in death. Further, the object of this surrender of 
Himself in death was the good of men. He was the 
Good Shepherd laying down His life fm* * the sheep 
(x. 11). In His last discourse He said that.it was 
expedient for the disciples that He should go away, 
for if He did not go away the Comforter would not 
come (xvi. 7). Thus He directly connected His 
death with the descent of the Holy Spirit, which is 

* inrip, " on behalf of." " for the sake of.'* St. John never 
uses the word &vtI^ " instead of," which we have met with in 
one saying recorded by Mark and Matthew (Mark x. 45 ; 
Matt. XX. 28), in relation to the death of Christ. 



72 THE THEOLOGY OF 

elsewhere referred to as the greatest of blessings. 
This is a thought peculiar to the fourth Gospel. 
Lastly, the death of Christ was to result in glory 
to God and to His Son. After shrinking from the 
dark prospect He braced Himself up to face it 
with the thought that it would glorify God's name 
(xii. 27, 28). He often referred to it as His own 
glorification {e.g., xii. 23 ; xvii. 1). 

VI. CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN 
THE KINGDOM 

Although the open proclamation of the gospel by 
Jesus Christ showed that its privileges were free to 
all men, other of our Lord's declarations made it clear 
that many people would miss the. enjoyment of them. 
This fact and its causes are illustrated in the parable 
of the Sower, which describes how the best seed will 
fail if it falls on uncongenial soil, and a mournful 
confirmation is furnished in the rejection of Jesus 
by the greater part of His hearers. 

Inasmuch as our Lord came to rule over a spiritual 
dominion which has its seat in the will, the first 
condition must be voluntary acquiescence on the 
part of His subjects. Such a kingdom as this 
must be " received " or " entered " by a personal 
act. Moreover, many people may covet its privi- 
leges and yet never taste them (Luke xiii. 24), 
because a bare desire to enter the kingdom is not 
enough. Certain conditions must be fulfilled. These 
may all be summed up in the idea of whole-hearted 
self-surrender. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 73 

The first step in this self -surrender is the renun- 
ciation of sin. Jesus commenced His ministry with 
the Baptist's appeal to repentance (Mark i^ 15). 
Although this is not named so often in our Lord's 
later ministry as we might expect, it is plainly 
implied throughout. The woman known as "a 
sinner," who follows our Lord to the Pharisee's 
house, confesses her heartfelt penitence by washing 
the feet of Jesus with her tears (Luke vii. 37, 38) ; 
Zacchseus, who receives salvation into his house in 
receiving Christ, restores fourfold to those whom he. 
has wronged by extortion (xix. 8); the publican 
at the temple is accepted because he confesses his 
sins, while the Pharisee, who only confesses his 
virtues, though he acknowledges that God is the 
source of them, is rejected (xviii. 10-14). Although 
the religious people of the day were sceptical of the 
possibility of the amelioration of corrupt characters, 
Christ, who came to effect a complete regeneration 
of the very worst among them, was both quick to dis- 
cover the first leaning towards a better life, and stem 
to refuse all encouragement where this was not to be 
found, even in decorous people who were not conscious 
of the need of improvement. His keen sense of the 
evil of sin led Him to extend the requirements of 
repentance in two directions. The first was in 
showing the universality of the need of repentance. 
Jesus did not come to call the righteous, but sinners — 
i.e., those who owned to sin (Mark ii. 17). People 
who were ironically allowed the name of righteous 
were excluded from His call just because they did 
not admit their sinfulness. The second extension 



74 THE THEOLOGY OF 

of the requirement of repentance was in regard to its 
internal character. Christ demanded a real change 
of mind and intention (/xeravota), while the external 
religion of His day was satisfied with the penance of 
fasts and almsgiving. In this demand He followed 
John the Baptist, but the searching character of His 
teaching made it much more significant. 

It has been remarked that faith does not take the 
prominent position in the teaching of Christ which it 
holds in the Pauline Epistles ; but the difference is 
more apparent than real, and it may be accounted 
for in a large measure by the more concrete method 
of our Lord's teaching, because, though He does not 
describe the relation of the abstract idea ^^ faith '' to 
discipleship with any fulness, His whole demeanour 
shows how much He expects those who come to Him 
to manifest a trustful spirit as an essential condition 
of being received. To the first appeal, " Repent ye," 
Jesus immediately adds, •" and believe in the gospel." 
He frequently urges His disciples to believe in God. 
Faith is absolutely necessary for those who would be 
healed by Him. The cure is according to the faith ; 
and when faith is wanting— as at Nazareth — miracles 
are impossible (Mark vi. 5). Jesus speaks of Httle 
ones who " believe on " Him (ix. 42), and He encour- 
ages His disciples to ask in His name (Matt. x. 22). 
Here faith is not the acceptance of a set and formal 
creed. The fii-st instance gives " the gospel " as the 
object of faith. In all other cases the object is a 
person — God or Christ. 

On the other hand, our Lord repeatedly insists on 
the importance of active obedience. He concludes 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 75 

His Sermon on the Mount with the parable of the 
Two Houses : that on the rock represents every one 
who hears His words, " and doeth them '' ; that on the 
sand every one who hears them, " and doeth them 
not" (Matt. vii. 24-7). He owns as His nearest 
relatives all who do the will of God (Mark iii. 35). 
The three great parables of judgment in Matt. xxv. 
turn on questions of conduct. But the obedience 
which Christ required must be interpreted in harmony 
with the principles of His revelation of the kingdom 
of heaven and of the new covenant. He did not 
bring an external kingdom and a law of the letter- 
Ruling in the heart with a law written within. He 
expected obedience in the form of a full submission 
of the will. This, then, is just one aspect of the 
self-surrender — it is self-surrender in action. 

To the disciples who asked with foolish ambition, 
" Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven 1 " 
Jesus replied by setting a little child in the midst of 
them, and saying, " Verily I say unto you. Except ye 
turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise 
enter into the kingdom of heaven " (Matt, xviii. 3), 
thereby teaching that childlikeness is an essential 
condition of membership. Just as the child had no 
idea of seeking a place of honour and could put forth 
no claim for such a position, the true disciple must 
approach the kingdom with no appeal to the history 
of his previous achievements, but as beginning life 
afresh with a child's sense of helplessness and depend- 
ence. To attain this childlike state even good men 
such as our Lord's disciples must be completely turned 
round (lav fXYj (rrpa^^c, etc.). 



76 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Next, we must note that our Lord used strong and 
startling words on the subject of absolute renunciation. 
Speaking not to a few enthusiasts eager to pursue 
a course of superior sanctity, but addressing " the 
multitude " as well as " His disciples," Jesus exclaimed, 
" If any man wishes to come after Me, let him deny 
himself, and take up his cross and follow Me " (Mark 
viii. 34). When we consider the mixed character 
of the audience in connection with the universal 
application of the phrase " if any man wishes " (ct 
Tts ^cXct), it is evident that our Lord is laying down 
an essential condition of discipleship, not a counsel of 
perfection. Then if we do not read His words as they 
are emasculated in Christian usage, but in their 
original strength, we see that they mean complete 
self -surrender. The self-denial is not merely sup- 
pressing some desire of pleasure, but renouncing self 
{dirapvr}(Td<T$u) lavTov) — i.e., it is making self no longer a 
supreme end. The cross-bearing is not suffering some 
inconvenience : to put it in modern language, it is 
following Christ even to the gallows. This is a con- 
dition of discipleship because it is involved in the 
faithful following of Christ. Jesus does not attribute 
any merit to asceticism ; on the contrary. He dis- 
courages it (Matt. xi. 19 ; Mark ii. 18, 19). The 
self-abnegation and the cross- bearing are not to be 
aspired after on their own account ; they are to 
be accepted as incidental to the supreme aim of 
following Christ, and they are necessitated by the 
fact that He renounced all self-seeking and found 
His mission along the course that ended in crucifixion. 
Since the Christian is a follower of Christ he cannot 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 77 

avoid the Ohrist-like life of self-abnegation ; he, too, 
must know the cross. 

Taken by themselves, these principles must incline 
us to regard Christianity as a pessimistic religion. 
But the peculiar glory of our Lord's teaching and 
example is that He shows that the way of the Cross 
is the way of life and true satisfaction. A man is to 
save himself by renouncing himself ; he is to find hts 
life by losing it (Mark viii. 35). This is the secret of 
Jesus. 

Along these lines we must seek for the interpreta- 
tion of some of the hardest sajdngs of Christ. In 
Luke xiv. 26 our Lord is reported as saying, " If any 
man cometh unto Me, and hateth not his own father, 
and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and 
sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My 
disciple." This phrase is softened in Matthew, where 
it reads, " He that loveth father or mother more than 
Me is not worthy of Me,*' etc. (Matt. x. 37). If 
St. Luke's version represents the original words of 
our Lord, St. Matthew's has them paraphrased in a 
correct explanation. Jesus who rebuked the prevalent 
excuses for disloyalty to the fifth commandment, 
could not have meant to destroy the most sacred 
natural afiections. But He taught that no earthly 
tie should interfere with the supreme duty of the 
Christian life. So He would not allow one new 
disciple to bid farewell to his friends, although He 
permitted the very thing in the case of Levi; and 
He even rejected the request of another for permission 
to perform what a Jew would regard as a supremely 
mportant duty — the burying of a father by his son 



78 THE THEOLOGY OF 

(Luke ix. 59, 60), because, reading their hearts, He 
knew that the petitioners were only offering excuses 
for not making a whole-hearted surrender of them- 
selves. The rich young man who craves the inherit- 
ance of eternal life has not done enough in keeping 
the commandments from his youth. There is one 
thing he lacks — viz.^ complete self-surrender. There- 
fore he must sell all he has, and give the proceeds to 
the poor, in order to follow Christ (Mark x. 17-22). 
Concerning this incident it may be remarked that the 
rule of poverty is laid on a single individual, and in 
answer to a pressing question of his ; it is not a part 
of Christ^s general teaching in discourses to the 
multitude by the sea-shore, or in His instruction of 
His disciples on the mount. Many disciples of Christ 
were permitted to retain their ^property without a 
rebuke. Possibly his wealth was a peculiar snare to 
the young ruler — his " great refusal " seems to indicate 
as much. Perhaps he was to have been honoured like 
the Apostles, who were committed to the life-work of 
a special service of Christ, for which they forsook 
home and business, although other Christians were 
not called to the same course. At all events, for 
him the total renunciation of wealth was necessary. 
Therefore not to make it was to renounce the hope of 
eternal life. A key to such teachings of Christ as 
these incidents contain may be found in His words 
about the eye, or hand, or foot, that is to be plucked 
out or cut off. The self -mutilation is to take place 
if the offending member causes a man to stumble 
(Mark ix. 43-50). With this condition the words of 
Christ may be taken quite Hterally ; just as we say 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 79 

a mortifying limb must be amputated to save the 
body. The following of Christ is the supreme duty, 
and it contains the true blessedness of the Christian. 
Therefore anything that interferes with this must be 
given up. The primary duty is self -surrender ; out 
of this flows the secondary duty of making a par- 
ticular sacrifice of whatever turns out to be incon- 
sistent with the self -surrender in individual cases. 

Some of the words of our Lord seem to imply that 
the privileges of the kingdom of God were not open 
to all classes of people. Thus, to the SyrophoBnician 
woman who sought the cure of her child, He spoke 
as though His blessings were reserved for Jews 
(Mark vii. 27). Yet it is not true to the history to 
maintain with Pfleiderer that the Christianity of Christ 
was mainly Jewish in its outlook, and that we owe 
the wider range of cosmopolitan Christianity to the 
influence of Greek thought in St. Paul and the 
Hellenists. It is only possible to accept such a view 
by means of an arbitrary mutilation of the Gospel 
records. The Gentile woman had what she sought. 
The rejection of Christ at Nazareth was occasioned 
by His words about the preference of Gentiles to 
Jews (Luke iv. 25-9). He had not found such faith 
in Israel as in that of a Roman centurion (vii. 9). 
His type of true neighbourliness is in a good 
Samaritan. Only a preconceived theory can lead to 
the rejection of these things from the life of Christ. 
They are wholly in accordance with His acknowledged 
spii'it of love and brotherliness in welcoming publicans 
and sinners, although it is still apparent that His 
immediate, personal mission was to Jews. Then 



80 THE THEOLOGY OF 

St. Luke's Gospel has been denominated " Ebionite," 
because of the favour for the poor and the hard words 
about the rich which it contains. But the two first 
Gospels have much in common with it in this respect, 
and record the difficulty of a rich man's entrance into 
the kingdom of God. Yet not one of the three re- 
cords is conceived in a spirit of positive animosity to 
rich men. It is rather that they are commiserated 
for their difficulties. These are on their side, not 
Christ's. When the Apostles ask in their amazement, 
" Who then can be saved ? " Jesus replies, " With men 
it is impossible, but not with God : for all things are 
possible with God " (Mark x. 26, 27) — t.e., even rich 
men can be saved by the almighty power of God. 

Again, our Lord thanks God that the mysteries of 
the kingdom are hidden from the wise and under- 
standing, and revealed to babes (Luke x. 21). We 
may compare this with St. Paul's record of his mis- 
sionary experience that " not many wise after the 
flesh" are called (1 Cor. i. 26). But that Christ 
absolutely refused His gospel to people of intelligence 
is not to be supposed. There were such among His 
disciples. His language is partly ironical. Some 
were too wise in their own conceits to learn of Him. 
Then it was good news for the multitude that His 
richest truths were put within the reach of the un 
learned and simple. Lastly, His requirement that 
His disciples should turn and become as little children 
pointed out the way by which "the wise" might 
participate in the privileges of His gospel. 

Jesus deplored that while many were called few 
were chosen (Matt. xxii. 14). The parable of the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 81 

Sower shows why in so many cases the call was 
ineffectual. This is brought out still more clearly in 
the parable of the Marriage Feast. The invitation 
is to the many, the banquet is abundant ; but those 
who were first invited invent excuses for staying 
away. Both parables make it evident- that the fault 
is on man's side. 

But our Lord sometimes spoke as though He had 
a deliberate intention of hiding His truths from the 
majority of His hearers (Mark iv. 11, 12). This could 
not have been with the sole object of keeping them 
in the dark, because in that case He might have 
refrained from all public utterances. He evidently 
desired to sift the multitude, so as to separate the 
earnest souls from the indifferent. All who would 
listen sympathetically could learn His deepest truths, 
for we can scarcely regard the private training of the 
Apostles as a purely esoteric instruction strictly 
reserved for the initiated, because Jesus uttered most 
of His loftiest ideas in public. The secret of His 
teaching would be missed by uncongenial spirits, not 
because of His reticence, but simply on account of 
their moral obliquity. Still, a quotation from Isaiah 
(Isa. vi. 9) and our Lord's own language imply a 
deliberate intention that such people should not 
receive the teaching. The action of Christ here 
must be considered side by side with His repeated 
e3q)ressions of a generous desire to welcome all 
who truly submit to Him, and in the light of His 
distress at the failure of those who rejected His 
message at Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum 
(Luke X. 13, 15), and, above all, at Jerusalem 

6 



82 THE THEOLOGY OF 

(xiii. 34). The justification seems to be that those 
who were unwilling to follow His teaching, and who 
therefore could not benefit by a barely intellectual 
understanding of its deeper mysteries, ought not to 
be allowed to profane those mysteries, because the 
profanation would injure them while it dishonoured 
Him. 

Among the conditions stated in the fourth Gospel 
most emphasis is laid on the new birth, which here 
'takes the place of repentance in the Synoptics as 
the first step, although it is a deeper experience. In 
harmony with the general teaching of this Gospel the 
idea of birth is not merely concerned with a change 
of thought and intention ; it points to the beginning 
of a new life. While repentance presents itself as a 
change on man's part, the new birth has its origin in 
God. The general usage of the Greek word avaiOtv * 
in the New Testament suggests that it should be 
translated "from above," and that the words of 
Christ should read, " Except a man be born from 
above he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 
iii. 3). The birth is plainly Divine in its origin, 
for its source is the Holy Spirit — it is " that which 
is born of the Spirit." In reference to this event 
Christ refers to the free and mysterious movement 
of the Spirit of God, coming invisibly, we know not 
how, like the wind. Thus the first condition is 
associated with the work of the Spirit. 

A more prominent position is assigned to faith 
here than in the Synoptics, and its deeper character 
is revealed. It is also now more closely associated 

* See John xix. 11, 23 ; Gal. iv. 9 ; James i 17, iii. 15. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 83 

with Christ Himself. The Son of Man must be lifted 
up, "that whosoever believeth may in Him have 
eternal life " (iii. 15). In the discourse on the 
bread of life Jesus identifies faith in Him with 
eating ffis flesh. Thus in one place He says, "He 
that believeth hath eternal life " (vi. 47), and in 
another, " He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My 
blood hath eternal life " (vi. 54). The parallelism of 
the two expressions should not lead us to weaken 
the force of the second, but rather to give a deeper 
meaning to the first than we should otherwise assign 
to it, because the whole current of our Lord's 
language is directed to the end of our realising living 
relations with Himself as the food of eternal life. 
Thus faith is seen to be a personal appropriation of 
Jesus Christ. Our Lord's words anticipate the ideas 
which underlie the Lord's Supper. That feast in the 
Synoptics illustrates to the eye what the discourse of 
Christ in St. John explains to the mind. 

It would seem that the limitations of discipleship 
are stronger in the fourth Gospel than they ai*e in 
the Synoptics. Christ has all, to whom it is given 
by His Father (vi. 65), which implies that others 
have not the gift and therefore cannot be included 
in the fold. In controversy with the Jews He 
contrasts the children of the devil with the children 
of Abraham and of God (viii. 39, 44, 47). But we 
have seen already * that our Lord's utterances on this 
subject are associated with blame for those whom He 
characterises with so much apparent harshness. It 
was their own conduct that had brought them into 
* Page4y. 



84 THE THEOLOGY OF 

this deplorable state. They had sinned with open eyes. 
If they had been blind, they would have been excused 
(ix. 41). Moreover, there is no ground for thinking 
that Jesus considered their condition to be hopeless. 
Had He thought so, would it not have been useless 
for Him to argue with themi And does not His 
treatment of them show that He was trying to 
reach their consciences ? This is very different from 
the Gnostic idea of two orders of men for ever 
distinguished by nature and fate. 



VII. THE NEW ETHICS 

By far the greater part of the teachings of Jesus 
Christ i*ecorded in the Gospels was devoted to the 
practical guidance of His disciples in the conduct of 
life along the path that He was also indicating by 
His own example. He took no interest in the 
elaboration of dogma or the performance of ritual. 
The strength of His mind and soul, His pregnant 
thought and regal will, all the passion of His enthu- 
siasm and all the fire of His indignation, were 
expended on the behaviour of men and women 
towards God and their neighbours. Nevertheless, 
when torn out of their place in the circle of His 
instruction, the pure ethics of the Gospels may seem 
to consist of quite unattainable, though most beautiful, 
counsels of perfection. It is only while they are 
taken in their right bearings as laws of the kingdom 
of God that they can be accepted as immediately 
practicable. Jesus did not propose the precepts of 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 85 

the Sermon on the Mount to the Jews' Sanhedrim 
or the Roman Senate. Evidently they would not 
work in an unchristian society, and they were never 
offered to any such community. They were given 
to the disciples in a retreat apart from the miscel- 
laneous crowd of sightseers who flocked to witness 
the miracles (see Matt. v. 1). They only admit of 
being embodied in the social order of any nation in 
proportion as the population has already become 
Christian. Laws of the kingdom of God can be put 
in operation just so far as the kingdom is dominant, 
and no farther. We must bear in mind this qualifi- 
cation of their scope and range as we proceed to 
examine the details of the new ethics introduced by 
our Lord. 

It was the peculiar mission of the prophets of Israel 
to insist on the intimate union of religion and right- 
eousness in contrast to the common practices of her 
neighbours, among whom the cult of the gods was 
divorced from morality. In the days of our Lord the 
Pharisees professed to maintain this mission, and they 
scornfully condemned the Sadducean priests who were 
satisfied with the temple ritual to the neglect of the 
personal demands of the law. But the Pharisees 
themselves were really the greatest offenders in setting 
up an artificial standard that was only a screen for 
the neglect of real righteousness. Now Jesus recovers 
the position of the prophets, and advances beyond it. 

He shows that our highest duty is that owed to 
God, for the first commandment is to love God intel- 
ligently and strongly (Mark xii. 30). This duty had 
been prescribed in the old law ; and here, as in other 



86 THE THEOLOGY OF 

matters, our Lord's originality did not involve a formal 
breach with the past. Even an inquiriog scribe knew 
of the supreme duty (Luke x. 27). But Christ gave 
it a new prominence and a much deeper meaning. 
From Him it comes to us clothed in all the force and 
beauty of Hi« revelation of the Father. Now out of 
this fundamental obligation certain great requirements 
flow — supreme among them, and comprehending all 
others, that of doing God's will. For Christ Himself 
the will of God is the only law of life ; in realising His 
ideal as our exemplar He presents a picture of abso- 
lute obedience to God. The sole condition on which He 
consents to recognise any people as His near relatives 
is that they too do God's will. In His model prayer 
He puts the honour of God, the coming of the Divine 
kingdom, and the doing of God's will on earth before 
any thoughts of personal need. He deprecates 
anxiety about temporal affairs, not so much because 
this is irksome to us, but rather, as He expressly 
says, because it hinders us in the pursuit of "the 
kingdom of God and His righteousness " (Matt. vi. 33). 
His beautiful exhortations to trust in the providential 
goodness of God are directly deduced from His stern 
declaration that " No man can serve two masters." 
It is immediately after saying "Ye cannot serve 
God and mammon," that He adds, " Therefore I 
say unto you. Be not anxious for your life," etc. 
(vi. 24, 25). Conversely, sin is a personal offence 
against God. The prodigal son confesses that he 
has sinned " against heaven " as well as before his 
father (Luke xv. 18). 

Another great characteristic of the ethics of Christ 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 87 

is supplied by their positive spirit. The requirements 
of the casuistry prevalent in the days of our Lord 
were for the most part negative. Even the decalogue 
consists chiefly of prohibitions ; and later Judaism 
far exceeded the written law in its restrictions, while 
it relaxed the requirements of the great active duties. 
Thus to keep oneself from defilement was the leading 
aim of Pharisaism. Our Lord was blamed for His 
indifference to this question of purification. As a 
matter of fact, His indifference only extended to 
foolish ceremonial forms, and did not relate to real 
contamination. But in His treatment of moral 
questions He was not satisfied with demanding 
abstinence from evil. He was much more concerned 
with the doing of good. This was the rule of His 
own life. He was described by St. Peter as One who 
"went about doing good " (Acts x. 38). An immaculate 
saint who never worked for the service of God and 
man — if such a person existed — would come under 
our Lord'i^ most severe censure. Thus the man who 
is represented as building on the sand is not chaiged 
with any offence : his life ends in ruin simply because 
he fails to do what Christ requires. Dives is tormented 
by the flames of Gehenna for no act of cruelty to 
Lazarus, but it would seem solely for neglecting to 
assist his miserable neighbour with the wealth which 
he squandered on his own luxuries. In the great 
parables of judgment the foolish virgins, the man of 
one talent, and the people who are set on the left 
hand of the Judge are none of them accused of any 
transgression : in every case the fault is the neglect 
of some positive action. The Samaritan who showed 



88 THE THEOLOGY OF 

kindness to a fellow-man in need is a typical example, 
in contrast to a priest and a Levite to whom no vice 
is attributed. Clearly the drift of Christ's exhorta- 
tions is all in the direction of active service. His 
people are compared to labourers hired to work in a 
vineyard, stewards entrusted with responsible func- 
tions, traders expected to invest the money of a 
capitalist — not idle ascetics secluded from all con- 
tamination. 

Nevertheless, no teaching of our Lord is more 
striking or more original than His repeated insist- 
ence on the truth that good and evil are, primarily, 
concerns of the interior life. This was of first im- 
portance in opposition to the hypociisy of a religion 
of superficial pretences and barren forms — a religion 
that consisted in ostentatious prayers, fasts, and alms- 
giving apart from spiritual worship, contrition, and 
brotherly kindness. Here the preaching of Christ 
most heavily assailed the apparent goodness of the 
most respected people of His day. But it contained 
more than the indignant denunciation of shams and 
lies which any true prophet such as Amos or Isaiah 
would have uttered. Jesus immediately enlarges the 
value of the life within. He goes back from deeds to 
words, from words to thoughts, from separate thoughts 
to the life out of which they spring. Men are to be 
judged for every idle word (Matt. xii. 36). Hatred 
and lust are treated as murder and adultery, be- 
cause the Clime is in the intention (vers. 21-32). 
Swearing is forbidden (vers. 33-7), because it treats 
the obligation of truth-speaking as external and 
variable, since it implies that without the oath 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 89 

veracity would not be expected.* The charity, purity, 
and truthfuhiess which Christ requires are all re- 
garded as products of the interior life; and so are 
their opposite sins : " Out of the heart proceed '* all 
kinds of evil things (Mark vii. 21). Therefore defile- 
ment is from within — i.e., it is not got by bodily 
contact with what is unclean, but produced by the 
outflowing of unclean thoughts and words and deeds 
from an unclean heart. Prayer, fasting, and alms- 
giving are to be practised in secret, lest the public 
show of them should lead to hypocrisy. Jesus was 
accustomed to retire to the solitude of the mountains 
for His own private prayer, and He modestly checked 
the spreading fame of His miracles as though it 
pained Him. In particular two great reasons for 
the severity of this principle of inwardness are 
supplied. 

The first is found in the penetrating vision of God, 
who sees in secret. It implies that Grod's view of 

* It must be remembered that we are here concerned with 
laws of the kingdom of God, not with the regulations of a 
police-court. If a civil state which has not yet reached the 
level of Christ's legislation imposes oaths, our Lord's example , 
in submitting to the adjuration of the high -priest shows that 
acquiescence is not forbidden. In condemning swearing, 
Jesus was not contemplating this situation. He was repro- 
bating the habit of taking oaths in every-day life. Undoubt- 
edly this was the primary aim of His words. The absoluteness 
of the prohibition seems to go farther, however. Here is a 
law of the kingdom. When the kingdom is universally estab- 
lished, even the judicature will be able to dispense with the 
coarse expedient of obtaining evidence on oath. Many think 
that it would be a more Christian course to abandon it at once, 
while imposing the penalty of perjury on false witnessing. 



90 THE THEOLOGY OF 

our conduct is of supreme importance, although that 
is precisely what people who "study appearances'' 
ignore. In His own actions our Lprd showed 
Himself blankly indifferent to the blame of men. 
Criticised adversely by the religious orthodoxy of His 
day, He remained perfectly serene, because He was 
assured that His Father was "well pleased" with 
Him, and that was all the approval He cared for. 

The other ground for the rigour of the principle 
of inwardness lies in the very constitution of nature. 
The quality of the fruit is determined by the quality 
of the tree. You must first make the . tree: good if 
you would have good fruit (Luke vi 43, 44). • 

Stem as this principle is in its intensity, when 
regarded extensively it is seen to introduce a large 
and gracious liberty. Jesus moved in a free atmo- 
sphere. He snapped the cords of the precisionists, 
and trampled down their carefully trimmed hedges. 
He also liberated His disciples from external restraints 
on the plain condition that they were to be guided 
by internal motives. ' TTius the irksome details of 
casuistry are quite foreign to the ethics of Christ. 
The Christian is to be governed by principle, not 
by rule; and therefore He must become a law to 
himself. Inasmuch as it was the method of Christ 
to teach by concrete examples, He seems to lay down 
definite lines of conduct for individual cases. But 
it would be contrary to His intention to apply His 
words with pedantic literalness. Even of these words 
it must be said that the bare letter kills, while it is 
the spirit of them that gives life. 

On the other hand, while our Lord's teaching is 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 91 

individualistic in regard to the springs and sources 
of conduct, because it directs attention to the secret 
recesses of the soul, to "the abysmal depths of per- 
sonality," and while it starts from personal life and 
character, its outlook and aim are distinctly social. 
The Christian is not to regard himself as a solitary 
unit ; nor is he to spend his strength in the cultivation 
of his own well-being. He is a member of a society ; 
nay, one of a family. The Fatherhood of God neces- 
sarily leads to the brotherhood of man. Therefore 
conduct cannot be determined with regard to abstract 
ideas of goodness alone : it must be shaped and 
governed according to its influence on society. This 
is the key to some of the most striking sayings of 
Christ which, considered by themselves^ sound extra- 
vagant and unreasonable. 

It is a highly significant fact that when our Lord 
had answered the question as to which was the 
greatest commandment by quoting that which re- 
quires a supreme love of God, He volunteered to 
add the second: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
as thyself." Jesus developed the teaching of this old 
precept in three respects : — 

1. He gave it a new emphasis. He brought it 
into the light, and set it before men as the ruling 
principle of their conduct in dealing one with another. 
This He did in clear words, but more vividly in almost 
every deed of His life. Living entirely for others. 
He set the pattern of the Christian life. 

2. He enlarged the notion of the neighbour. To 
the question "Who is my neighbour?" He replies 
by giving the parable of the Good Samaritan, which 



92 THE THEOLOGY OF 

shows that the idea of neighbourliness is not to be 
limited by national distinctions — as the most culti- 
vated Athenians had held ; nor by religious differences 
— as the most pious Jews taught ; nor by ignorance 
and strangeness — as the world still holds ; nor indeed 
by any conceivable limit. The Samaritan sees a stray 
Jew in need, and helps him. That is neighbourliness. 
It is our duty, then, to love all men whom we may 
happen to come across, and to show kindness to 
strangers and aliens as well as to acquaintances and 
comrades; in national affairs to treat the rights of 
foreigners and people of very different civilisations 
with as much consideration as we would give to our 
own interests. 

3. Christ pointed out the effects of this love to 
one's neighbour. His golden i*ule, " As ye would that 
men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise " 
(Luke vi. 31), was just the same principle shaped for 
practical application. The idea of love must not be 
allowed to evaporate in an idle sentiment. It must 
manifest itself in conduct, in what we do. Our Lord 
showed the working of this principle in illustrative 
examples. Thus it is seen in hospitality. The principle 
of loving one's neighbour as oneself must break down 
the exclusiveness of society. To invite guests who 
will make an adequate return is not the height of 
hospitality. The Christian host will invite the poor 
who cannot pay for their meal by the polite method 
of giving another meal. The same principle is more 
manifest in the generosity that helps the needy. 
Instead of refusing aid to people in difficulties, or 
only lending to them with a hope of receiving our 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 93 

money back again, the neighbourly act is to give to 
them outright, and to expect no recompense— although 
the gift may be denominated a loan to spare the 
feelings of the recipient (ver. 34). Christ spent His 
own life in healing the sick and helping the suffer- 
ing out of pure compassion. Then the suppression 
of revenge is another application of the golden rule. 
Evidently this is what our Lord means by His clear, 
strong utterances in recommendation of non-resistance. 
To let the robber take the coat as well as the cloak, 
and to turn the left cheek to one who has smitten 
the right cheek, are the very opposites of revenge. 
Such actions appear absurd and preposterous until we 
have realised the inspiring principle of neighbourly 
love which lies behind them. The Christian is to 
treat his assailant as a man whom he loves as him- 
self. Jesus taught this lesson by His own behaviour, 
when under insult and outrage He submitted patiently 
and was " led as a lamb to the slaughter," because He 
was suffering for the good of those who ill-used Him. 
The duty of forgiveness goes beyond that of passive 
non-resistance, since it requires us to welcome the 
offender to our friendship. Such an act is necessarily 
limited by the preliminary requirement of repentance 
and confession (Luke xvii. 4). But when that con- 
dition is fulfilled the duty is to forgive ungrudgingly 
and repeatedly — seventy times seven times, if as many 
occasions arise (Matt, xviii. 22). Lastly, there is the 
duty of holding charitable opinions. The disciple of 
Christ is not to judge others (vii. 1). He is not to 
concern himself with the ofiicious interference of point- 
ing out the mote in his brother's eye while a beam is in 



94 THE THEOLOGY OF 

his own eye. He is rather to look to his own fault, 
and to discover that his censorious spirit is far worse 
than the slight defect he is pharisaically blaming in 
his brother. 

Our Lord, who had no faults of His own to amend, 
affords us the highest possible example of kindness to 
foes by praying for His enemies on the cross, and by 
even dying for the world that rejected Him. If 
the Christian is to be the follower of Christ, he must 
imitate most closely that which is most characteristic 
of his Leader — ^.e., the conduct which renders good for 
evil, even in the most supreme sacrifice of self. This 
conduct is primarily related to individuals. A man 
is to love his neighbour, not merely his Church, his 
nation, or mankind. He is to regard himself as a 
member of a community, and to arrange his conduct 
in view of his social relations ; but his aim is not that 
of the Greek patriot — to exalt his city ; nor that of 
the Jew — to advance his race ; nor that of the eccle- 
siastic — to glorify his Church : he is a brother who 
is expected to study the welfare of the other members 
of God's family, and not perpetrate that absurdity of 
ancient politics and mediaeval ecclesiasticism — the 
sacrificing of men and women to the idol of an 
abstraction. 

Nevertheless, here too we may notice the germinal 
ideas of the doctrine of the Church. One of these 
is social Christianity. The word €KK\rjcria is twice 
ascribed to Christ — ^in the first case standing for a 
definite local community (Matt, xviii. 17), and in the 
second used with reference to the whole body of 
Christians (xvi. 18). It has been questioned whether 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 95 

this Greek word is the correct rendering of our Lord's 
Aramaic phrase. But the doubt is not of great 
moment. While the Christians had not yet broken 
■with Judaism, while they were still worshipping in the 
temple and in their local synagogues, they could not 
have been formed into a separate ecclesiastical com- 
munity. Moreover, until Christ had led them into 
some clear conception of His truth they had not the 
materials for Church order and life. But the new 
condition did not come suddenly into being. The 
Church was a growth out of the earlier condition 
of discipleship. This development was necessary. 
Christianity is essentially social, because it is brotherly. 
Christ draws His followers together in drawing them 
to Himself, because thereby He infuses in them His 
own brotherly spirit. Thus when He was removed 
it was natural that they should meet together as 
members of one family, owning a common Father and 
a common Brother. Moreover, the teachings of Christ 
constantly presuppose the fellowship of Christians. 
Thus He gives a special promise to encourage united 
prayer (xviii. 19, 20). 

An important aspect of the life of the Church is 
seen in those teachings of Christ which relate to 
the influence His people are destined to exercise in the 
world. They are to be the salt of the earth and the 
light of the world, and they are directly commissioned 
to make disciples of all the nations (Matt, xxviii. 19). 
The Apostles were chosen to be the leading instruments 
of the great mission, to be "fishers of men." The 
greater part of our Lord's teaching consisted in the 
training of the twelve; and He bade His disciples 



96 THE THEOLOGY OF 

pray for more labourers to be sent into the harvest- 
field. In addition to this primary duty of mission 
preaching, the Apostles — represented by their spokes- 
man, • St. Peter — were ordained to act in regard 
to Christian morals as the rabbis acted in the ad- 
ministration of the Jewish law, i.e., to explain what 
was right and what was wrong, a process commonly 
designated by the phrase " binding and loosing " 
(xvi. 19). 

The fourth Gospel treats more of the spiritual 
experiences that lie behind the ethics. Righteousness 
is here set forth in two great ideas. First, it is doing 
God's will (John v. 30 ; vi. 38). Christ expects His 
disciples to keep His "commandments" (xiv. 15). 
Here we have an evident allusion to such precepts as 
those of the Sermon on the Mount, although St. John 
does not anywhere recite them, as the Synoptics 
do. Now the stress is laid on the spirit of obedi- 
ence, rather than on definite actions. This obedience 
is not servile; it is intelligent, free, based on love. 
Second, righteousness is rooted in truth (viii. 44), 
which here assumes almost a concrete form, so real 
and solid is it. Thus right Christian conduct is truth 
in action. On the other hand, sin is denounced as 
wilful, open-eyed misconduct (ix. 41), which leads to 
bondage (viii. 34) and moral blindness (ix. 39). It is 
the opposite of "doing the truth"; shows itself in 
a lying spirit ; is directly diabolical in character, so 
that men who give way to it are named "children 
of the devil " (viii. 44) ; is most clearly revealed 
in the rejection of Christ (viii. 46, 47 ; xv. 22, 23) ; 
and is so prevalent and yet so little recognised 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 97 

that one great object of the coming of the Paraclete 
will be to " convict the world in respect of sin " 
(xvi. 8). This Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, is also the 
inspiration of righteousness. 

Among Christians brotherly love is strongly insisted 
on. It is the object of Christ's new commandment, 
and a natural result of His own love to His people 
(xv. 12). 

Lastly, the social aspect of Christianity is recog- 
nised. The immediate followers of Christ are like 
sheep in a fold. He has others outside the fold; 
but all will at length become one flock (x. 16). 

Christ 8 Treatment of the Old Testament, 
This subject naturally comes up for consideration 
under the topic of ethics, because it is chiefly on 
moral grounds that our Lord traverses the lines of 
the older legislation. At first sight His conduct 
is perplexing and apparently contradictory. He was 
familiar with the Old Testament, and He quoted 
it freely; not only because it was an authority 
with His hearers, but also because He attached to 
it Divine authority for Himself — e.g., in His tempta- 
tion in the wilderness. He said that not one jot 
or tittle of the law could fail (Matt. v. 18). To 
neglect the least commandment was to incur the 
penalty of taking the lowest place in the kingdom 
of heaven; to keep and teach the commandments 
fully was to earn a high place (ver. 19). The whole 
duty of man is deduced from precepts of the law. 
Jesus was accused of breaking the law ; but there 
is no evidence that He ever did so. He often broke 

7 



98 THE THEOLOGY OF 

through the scribes' /ewcc of the law; He distinctly 
repudiated popular application of the law : but He 
did not anticipate the attitude of St. Paul in re- 
nouncing the law itself. He was a Jew by birth, 
and He lived as a Jew, worshipping in the synagogue, 
attending the national festivals, paying the temple 
tax. On the other hand, He not only rejected 
mischievous traditions of the rabbis; He distinctly 
abrogated certain precepts of the Pentateuch — e.g., 
the hx talionis and the law of divorce — treating them 
in the historical spirit, as of a temporary character, 
and as shaped in accordance with the capacities of 
an inferior moral status. We must look for the key 
to our Lord's independent action in these matters in 
His own teaching. He said He came " to fulfil " the 
law and the prophets. By fulfilment He did not 
signify the actual performance of what was required by 
the law (as in Rom. xiii, 8), nor the realising of pro- 
phecy in the event. His teachings plainly show that 
He meant a completion — i.e., the development of the 
Mosaic commands and the prophetic instructions up 
to the perfection of the Divine purpose that lay in 
them.* Christ found the underlying idea which was 
but inadequately attained in the Jewish Scriptures, 
and He realised it fully in His higher ethics, although 
the deliverance of the kernel sometimes involved the 
destruction of the husk. Two of our liOrd's great 
principles facilitated this process. First, the principle 
of inwardness led to the repudiation of formal regula- 
tions that were not always true to their original 
purpose in the circumstances of later times. Second, 
* For this idea of fulfilment see Matt, xxiii. 32 ; Mark i. 15. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 99 

the principle of brotherly love was applied as a touch- 
stone to laws which had been carried out irrespective 
of the good of mankind. Jesus taught boldly that 
^^the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the 
Sabbath" (Mark ii. 27); therefore the Son of Man 
who had come to save man and rule him had a right 
over the Sabbath ; therefore, too, the Sabbath must 
be utilised for man's good, not stiffened into a yoke 
of distressful and unprofitable formalism. Jesus did 
not proclaim the abolition of sacrifices and other 
temple ceremonies. But His teaching was a solvent 
beneath which, in course of time, all such relics of a 
mechanical ritual were bound to disappear. His 
practical genius. His large sympathy, His brotherli- 
ness, interpreting to us the mind and heart of God, 
had a natural affinity with the words of Hosea, 
which He once quoted : ** I desire mercy, and not 
sacrifice" (Matt. ix. 13). He plainly hinted that 
it would be impossible to keep the new wine of the 
Christian thought and life in the old, stiff wine-skins 
of Judaism, or to use the gospel merely to patch 
the ragged garment of the law. Such utterances 
show that, though our Lord did not expressly antici- 
pate "Paulinism," He sowed seeds of which the 
bold novelties of the great Hellenist might fairly be 
regarded as the legitimate development. 

^ VIIL THE FUTURE 

In His treatment of questions concerning the 
future, Jesus Christ made use of the current language 
of His day, and even of the imagery that was most 



100 THE THEOLOGY OF 

familiar to His contemporaries. Indeed, He did little 
to lift the veil that bides from us the circumstances 
of existence beyond the grave: His teaching on this 
subject has immense weight and significance, however : 
first, because it affirms with unhesitating certainty 
the great truth of a future life ; secondly, because it 
gives a spiritual conception of that life in opposition 
to popular materialistic views; and thirdly, because 
it lays down the conditions on which future blessedness 
may be attained. Moreover, His predictions of the 
approaching judgment and the Parousia — subjects 
which belong primarily to national rather than to 
private life — are full and explicit. These predictions 
demand separate treatment. Let us take them first. 

Jesus distinctly announced to His disciples that He 
would return to earth in splendour and power (Mark 
viii. 88; Luke xxi. 27). Such an idea was quite 
strange to Jewish thought, which knew nothing 
of a second advent of the Messiah; but it was 
necessitated by the fact that a premature death was 
fast approaching to cut short the earthly life of Jesus 
before He had accomplished the work of judgment or 
established the rule of might and blessedness which 
the prophets had foretold. 

Our Lord portrays His return in language that 
reminds us of the Old Testament theophanies, such 
as the coming of God in earthquake and tempest 
(Psalm xviii. 7-15), and His manifestations of Him- 
self in the doom of nations (1. 4-6). Is it not then 
unreasonable to conceive the descriptions of the 
coming of the Son of Man with clouds of glory and 
angelic attendants so Uterally as to anticipate a 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 101 

visible pageant, especially when we give due weight 
to a pictorial style of speech ? Besides, it is very 
evident that these pictures are based on Daniel's 
dream (Dan. vii. 13). Now, inasmuch as the world- 
kingdoms of that dream were never seen in history 
as monstrous beasts coming up from the sea, is it not 
inconsistent with the rest of the picture to expect the 
last scene — that which represents the kingdom from 
heaven — to be realised historically in the visible ap- 
pearance which it assumes in the dream 1 

But a great truth is here taught — ^viz., that Jesus 
Christ will return for judgment and rule. Further, 
His language is as definite as words can make it in 
asserting that this is to happen during the lifetime of 
His contemporaries. Some of those standing around 
Him are not to die before they see Him coming in 
the glory of His Father with His angels (Matt. xvi. 
27, 28). In concluding an account of His second 
advent He says, " Verily I say unto you. This gene- 
ration shall not pass away until all these things be 
accomplished " ; and then, to give emphasis to His 
prediction. He adds, " Heaven and earth shall pass 
away, but My words shall not pass away " (xxiv. 
34, 35). An examination of the details of the Vision 
of Judgment to which this solemn language refers 
shows that it has a very evident connection with the 
overthrow of the Jewish State and Church. The 
*' abomination of desolation" will stand in "a holy 
place," and then they "that are in Judcea^^ sltq to 
" flee unto the mountains " (ver. 16) — a warning 
tvhich the Jerusalem Christians took when they 
retreated to Pella on the approach of Titus and his 



102 THE THEOLOGY OF 

■ 

legions.* The time will be most trying for mothers 
with young children. Let the disciples pray that 
their flight be not in winter or on a Sabbath. 

Nevertheless, the teaching of Christ has a wider 
outlook. The parable of the Sheep and the Goats 
describes a judgment of the nations (Matt. xxv. 32) ; 
the parable of the Vineyard anticipates a time after 
the judgment of the Jews when the vineyard shall 
be let out to other husbandmen (x2d. 41); and a 
similar idea is seen in the parable of the Marriage 
Feast, which is to be supplied with guests after those 
first invited have declined to come (xxii. 9, 10). It 
is quite according to the analogy of all prophecy 
that there should be no perspective in the vision of 
the future. Our Lord declared His own ignorance 
of the day and hour of His coming. It is not less 
characteristic of prophecy that its principles should 
realise themselves in repeated historical fulfilments. 
This is suggested by the words, " Wheresoever the 
carcase Is, there will the eagles be gathered together.'* 
Christ returns in every Divine judgment ; He is 
present in the clouds, triumphing in every victory of 
the kingdom of God. 

In the next place, we have our Lord's teachings 
concerning the great hereafter. The Sadducees denied 

* Eeim, Pfleiderer, and others consider the Vision of 
Judgment ia Matthew to be part of a "Little Apocalypse," 
some lost Jewish work, and not a genuine utterance of Jesus 
Christ. But there are two decided objections to this view : 
(I) we have no reference to the work in all literature ; (2) the 
words were accepted by very early Christians as our Lord's. 
Could these people have been so greatly deceived 1 See 
Beyschlag, vol. i., p. 184. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 103 

a future life ; the Essenes limited it to the continued 
existence of souls ; the Pharisees taught that there 
would be a bodily resurrection, and their idea was 
predominant in the time of Christ. Our Lord ac- 
cepted the view of the Pharisees ; but He so trans- 
formed and elevated it that all its grossness 
disappeared. He never betrayed a shadow of doubt 
as to the existence of life beyond the grave. On the 
contrary, He affirmed it with serene assurance, and, 
when challenged by sceptical inquirers, proceeded to 
deduce a proof of it from an authority which they 
were bound to acknowledge. Pointing to an Old 
Testament title of God, He declared that the use of 
it by Moses implied that the patriarchs were really 
alive even in His day (Luke xx. 38). But while our 
Lord's words are thus luminous and emphatic, the 
supremely significant teaching, that which flashes a 
flood of light on the question of life after death, 
springs from His own example. He revealed the 
risen life by Himself rising from the dead. He is the 
firstfruits ; and in His resurrection we see both the 
actual commencement of the Christian resurrection 
and indications of its nature. First, we have an 
instance of the fact of life after death ; then the 
peculiar relation of Christ to mankind renders this 
prophetic and even causative of a similar experience 
in His brethren ; lastly, the peculiar actions of the 
risen Christ show that, since He did not return to the 
limitations and occupations of His earlier life, the risen 
life possesses unique powers in freedom from material- 
istic conditions. He could present Himself within 
closed doors, disappear before the eyes of men, walk 



104 THE THEOLOGY 0^ 

with His friends unrecognised by them, and yet prove 
His identity beyond doubt when He chose. 

In two particulars our Lord's language about the 
resurrection is marked by distinctive characteristics. 
One is in regard to the nature of the risen life. He 
repudiated the low conception of it suggested by the 
Sadducees, who tried to throw ridicule over it by 
introducing a trivial, vulgar question. Our Lord 
replied that the risen " neither marry, nor are given in 
marriage ; for neither can they die any more : for they 
are equal unto the angels " (Luke xx. 35, 36). The 
resurrection, then, is not to a physical, animal life. 

The other distinctive characteristic of our Lord's 
teaching about the resurrection is the assertion of its 
limitation. It is not for all men : it is only an in- 
heritance of the redeemed. There is no resurrection 
for the impenitent wicked. In the important passage 
which describes His argument with the Sadducees, 
Jesus speaks of those "that are accounted worthy 
to attain to that age and the resurrection from the 
dead " (ver. 35), plainly implying that those who are 
not accounted worthy do not attain to these ends. 
They only who thus attain " are sons of God, being 
sons of the resurrection." Future blessedness consists 
primarily, and indeed essentially, in the possession of 
eternal life. The great privilege is to attain unto 
the resurrection. The narrow way leads to life. 
Jesus was no pessimist. His doctrine, which has 
some affinities with Buddhism in its insistence on 
self-renunciation and in its pity for the miserable, is 
here directly opposed to the Oriental view of perfec- 
tion. Not nirvana^ but life, is the end of the highest 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 105 

spiritual endeavour. Therefore in itself life is good. 
To possess the powers and faculties of an undying and 
incorruptible life is regarded by Christ as the sum 
and substance of personal well-being. 

Then our Lord cheers His servants with the pros- 
pect of rewards, but so as to exclude a low, mercenary 
view of them. The King's feast is free to all kinds 
of people, irrespective of merit. While in the service 
of Christ deserts are considered, the recompense is 
more than wages. The parable of the Pounds shows 
that it far exceeds the w^orth of the sei-vice rendered ; 
for the charge of whole cities Ls given in return for 
fidelity in trade with money. This parable also 
teaches that the reward is to vary with the service 
rendered (Luke xix. 16-19). But it raises the subject 
above considerations which might instil mere greed for 
selfish pleasure. The reward for faithful service in 
the present life Ls the privilege of larger service 
hereafter. It is promotion. Christ sets this heavenly 
reward of His in contrast to the poor eai thly payment 
of the praise of men (Matt vi. 1-4) 

Although our Lord promises no resurrection for 
the impenitent wicked, He teaches that they will 
have conscious existence after death. Nowhere in 
the Bible do we meet with more terrible language 
describing the fate of those who die in their sins than 
in the words that fell from the lips of the Saviour of the 
world. He freely employed the most fearful imagery 
of His day. He spoke of the undying worm and the 
unquenchable fire of Gehenna — language borrowed from 
the description of a destruction of unburied corpses in 
Lsa. Ixvi. 24 — to show that the terrors of the world 



106 THE THEOLOGY OF 

to come are irresistible. Men cannot evade them or 
trample on them. Dives cannot cross the gulf that 
separates him from Abraham's bosom. 

Future punishment is largely negative. The man 
without the wedding garment is expelled from the 
king's feast ; the foolish virgins are shut out of the 
bridal festivities ; the idle servant loses his money, 
and is east into outer darkness. But this punishment 
is also fearfully positive. We read of " weeping and 
gnashing of teeth " (Matt. xxv. 30). It is better to 
lose an offending hand, or foot, or eye, than to be 
cast into the unquenchable fire of Gehenna (Mark 
ix, 43-50). As there is no resurrection for those who 
suffer after death, their sufferings cannot be physical ; 
they will have no body, therefore Christ uses the 
popular language in a metaphorical sense. But this 
does not imply that the sufferings will be less terrible. 
The worst pains are those that the soul feels. Indeed, 
all pain exists only in the consciousness. 

Many utterances of our Lord point to destruction 
rather than pain as the doom of ruined souls: the 
broad road leads to destruction ; the house on the sand 
is swept away by the flood, etc. It is not to be sup- 
posed that there is any contradiction between the ideas 
of painful punishment and destruction ; for the two 
things might not be contemporaneous, and the suffering 
might end in destruction. Moreover, the destruction 
might not involve extinction of being. We know that 
physiological death is far from annihilation. The dead 
body continues for a while as a decaying corpse, and 
the elements of this body exist after they have been 
dissipated, peath is the loss of a mysterious collection 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 107 

of powers, not the extermination of that in which they 
reside. The Greek word (avoKKviu) most commonly used 
for the doom of sin has a wide meaning, and signifies 
to ruin {e.g., Mark i. 24; ii. 22), and to lose (e.g., 
Mark ix. 41 ; Luke xv. 4, 8, 24) as well as to destroy. 

It is to be observed that our Lord speaks of 
gradations of punishment. One will be beaten with 
many stripes, another with few. It will be more 
tolerable in the ' day of judgment for Nineveh, Tyre, 
etc., than for the cities that rejected Christ. 

Did Jesus teach the possibility of restoration after 
death? He said, concerning a person guilty of an 
unpardonable sin, " It shall not be forgiven him, 
neither in this age, nor in that which is to come" 
(Matt. xii. 32), words which seem to imply that other 
sins might be forgiven hereafter. Perhaps the 
"stripes" with which a servant is beaten indicate 
corrective punishment. The strongest expression — 
that about going away " into eternal punishment " — 
might be read "into age-long chastisement" (cis 
KoXao-iv aiwnov); and the use of a term sometimes 
meaning chastisement rather than a word dessignating 
vindictive punishment {e.g., riynapia, Heb. x. 29), is 
thought by some to hint at remedial possibilities.* 
Above all, our Lord's revelation of the Fatherhood 
of God seems to conflict with the idea of a hopeless 
future. But all these hints are vague and uncertain. 
Christ did not make any assertion about a future 

* This distinction between KbXaxTLi and Tifuopla is expounded 
by Aristotle QRhet,, i. 10). On the other hand, Trench shows 
that the word K6\a<ns was used with the more severe signifi- 
cation in Hellenistic Greek (Syn. of the New Text.f p. 22). 



108 THE THEOLOGY OF 

restoration of the lost after death, nor did He utter 
any prophecy at all concerning the infinite future. 

The idea of Divine judgment is very prominent in 
the fourth Gospel, but with this peculiarity, that it is 
there generally assigned to the present age. The judg- 
ment has already commenced, and is now in progress. 
It is in the hands of Christ, who says, " For judgment 
came I into this world " (John ix. 39). We have not 
to wait for the Parousia before we sea Him judging 
the world. Yet the primary object of the advent of 
our Lord was not judgment, but salvation ; thus He 
said, " I came not to judge the world, but to save the 
world " (xii. 47). The verbal contradiction is easily 
solved. The aim and purpose of Christ was to save ; 
but the result of His coming, since He was rejected, 
was to judge. This is further explained by reference 
to the nature of our Lord's judgment, which is not the 
external exercise of His authority, but the internal 
influence of His truth : " The word that I spake, 
the same shall judge him in the last day " (ver. 48). 
This passage shows that our Lord taught that there 
would be a future judgment, a lesson which seems also 
to be indicated elsewhere {e.g., v. 22-7). Still, the 
fourth Gospel drops the Daniel-like imagery of the 
Parousia in clouds of glory and its associated picture 
of the grand assize. Christ will come again, but His 
advent will be spii-itual, into the hearts of His people. 
The true glorification of the Son is in His passion and 
during His earthly life (xiii. 31). 

This Gospel emphatically teaches the doctrine of 
future punishment. They who harden themselves 
in sin will pass under condemnation, and their doom 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 109 

will be destruction. Fruitless Christians will be 
dealt with like barren branchas that are cut off 
from the vine and burnt (xv. 6). 

Even more evidently than in the Synoptics the 
central idea of the future of the blessed embodied 
in St. John's version of Christ's teaching is that 
of eternal life, which is also associated with the 
resurrection here, as in the earlier accounts. Jesus 
distinctly teaches that the resurrection is for those 
who have His life in them. Thus, when Martha 
speaks of the resurrection as a matter of course 
to occur "at the last day," Jesus corrects her. It 
is not an incident of a certain day, it is connected 
with the person of Christ, who says, "I am the 
resurrection and the life; he that believeth on Me, 
though he die, yet shall he live " (xi. 25). This limits 
the resurrection to those who are in vital union with 
Christ. The same idea is taught in the discourse 
about the bread of life, where three times Jesus says 
that He will raise up at the last day those who believe 
on Him (vi. 39, 40, 54).* Of this Hfe we have full 
assurance. It is in the house of God, and with 
large room — " many resting-places." If it were not 
so, Christ would have told us. He goes Himself to 
prepare a place for His friends. 

* In one passage only St. John describes our Lord as 
predicting a " resurrection of judgment " for those '* that 
have done ill " (v. 29). This solitary expression is directly 
opposed to the explicit descriptions of the resurrection else- 
where in this Gospel, as well as in the Synoptics. Should 
we not, therefore, infer that St. John has here unconsciously 
assimilated the language of Christ to that of Daniel, which 
he almost quotes ? 



THE THEOLOGY OF THE 
APOSTLES 

UNSCIENTIFIC methods of study, based on 
d, priori notions of inspiration, long hindered 
the perception of any differences among the ideas of 
the early Christian teachers or any development of 
doctrine in the New Testament, and it is only in com- 
paratively recent times that historical criticism has 
been applied to the sacred documents, with the result 
that diversity of type and growth of thought have 
been discovered in apostolic teaching. 

The first use of the new process was so crude and 
violent that this process was at once gravely dis- 
credited in the minds of sober students. Its foremost 
leader and most brilliant exponent was Ferdinand 
Christian Baur. That daring critic maintained that 
the primitive Church was rent into two fiercely 
antagonistic parties — on the one side the original 
Apostles, Peter, John, James, etc., holding an intensely 
Jewish form of Christianity, represented by the 
Apocalypse; on the other side St. Paul, keenly 
anti-Jewish, and therefore repudiated by the Apostles, 
whom in turn he is said to have disparaged scornfully. 
St. Paul's views are extracted from his four greatest 

110 



UTEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 111 

Epistles — those to the Galatians, the Corinthians, and 
the Romans. The rest of the New Testament is 
afiirmed to be of late origin, and most of it designed 
to reconcile the contending parties, and so to establish 
in the second century the doctrine known as Catholic 
in subsequent ages. This extravagant theory, which 
is commonly designated the Tubingen hypothesis, has 
been discredited among the disciples of its founder. 
In a similar spirit, however, Pfleiderer has advanced 
a scheme of primitive doctrine, which avoids the 
difficulties of its predecessor, although it conjures up 
new notions of an even more objectionable character. 
Perceiving that no cleavage of the Church lasting 
down into the second century can be discovered 
either in the New Testament or in history, he holds 
that an agreement between the opposing parties was 
brought about much earlier than Baur supposed. 
But he considers that the most characteristic ideas of 
Christianity — its universalism in particular — did not 
originate in the mind of Jesus Christ, nor even spring 
from Jewish soil, but were products of Hellenism, 
consequences of the application of the wider Greek 
thought to the intense but narrow notions of primi- 
tive Christian teaching. Now, it is certainly a 
question of much interest, and one that has been too 
much neglected, how far Greek intellect has developed 
Christian doctrine along its own earlier lines. But 
Pfleiderer lands himself in the extraordinary position 
of virtually denying that Christ is the founder of 
Christianity. It has been shown, however, by such 
careful scholars as Lechler, Weiss, and Beyschlag, 
that the teachings- of the several Apostles are in 



112 THE THEOLOGY OF 

essential harmony with the life and thought of Jesus 
Christ. Nevertheless, even when we accept this 
view, important products of criticism remain, its 
substantial fruit which no theory can dissolve. In 
particular, these are the discovery of variations of 
type, and the perception of development in doctrine. 

Three main types of apostolic doctrine may be 
unmistakeably distinguished. First, we have the 
primitive type, represented by the earlier speeches in 
the Acts of the Apostles, the history of the Judsean 
Churches, and the Epistles of St. James and St. Peter. 
This is more or less Jewish throughout, relying much 
on the Old Testament, though with a preference for 
the prophets, and not readily recognising a breach 
between Christianity and Judaism ; in tone it is 
practical and unspeculative. Next comes the great 
Pauline type, vividly illustrated in the life of the 
Apostle, amply expounded in his writings, and 
reflected from another standpoint in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews. This is vigorously anti-legal, revealing 
the emancipation of Christianity from Judaism, and the 
more spiritual nature of the gospel, its cosmopolitan 
character, its universalism. The Pauline teaching 
is both more mystical and more dialectical than the 
primitive type. It opens up the deepest spiritual 
experiences, and it ventures on elaborate discussions 
of doctrine. St. Paul is the parent of specula- 
tive Christian theology. Lastly, we meet with the 
Johannine type, that preserved in the writings of the 
fourth Evangelist. The controversy with Judaisers 
within the Church is now over, or it is not concerning 
the circles in which St. John is living during his later 



THE NEW-TESTAMENT 113 

years. Instead of this the Apostle is confronted with 
the speculations of an incipient Gnosticism origi- 
nating in Judaism, but mixed up with pagan ideas. 
The same position is faced by St. Paul in his later 
epistles. We now see Christianity in contact with 
the thought of the Gentile world. In view of this 
situation the theology of St. John is both fundamental 
and spiritual. The Apostle is most anxious to save 
the first principles of the faith from being dissipated 
in a haze of visionary ideas. His object, therefore, is 
to define rather than to reason. 

While a distinct progress of thought may be 
traced throughout the teaching of the Apostles, it Ls 
a curious fact that, with the exception of the Epistle 
of St. James, in which it is least observable, this 
progress is not mainly based on the teaching of 
Jesus. It starts from the person of Christ, His death, 
and resurrection.; builds upon the facts of living 
Christian experience ; and combines these two series 
of data with a new spiritual interpretation of the 
Old Testament, to which it appeals as the ultimate 
standard. ' Undoubtedly a certain Jewish colour is 
given to New Testament theology throughout, not 
only because it is all expounded by Jews, but also 
because it so intimately interweaves itself with the 
ideas of the ancient Scriptures. " Christian theo- 
logy," says Reuss,* "originated in a^ examination 
of the relation of the gospel to the law. ... It 
was born, so to speak, out of the inevitable conflict 
between the old ideas and the new." No one of the 

* Hist, of CJirist Theol.y third edition (Bng. TraDS.), vol. i., 
p. 285. 

8 



lU THE THEOLOGY OF 

New Testament writers takes up the position held by 
Marcion a century later, when that bold and able 
thinker repudiated the Old Testament as distinctly 
opposite in character to the New, The apostolic 
writers followed Jesus Christ in looking for the fulfil- 
ment of the Old in the New. Thus they taught a 
doctrine of development. Then, under the influence 
of the Holy Spirit which, as Jesus promised, was to 
lead them into all truth, their reflections on the death 
and resurrection of Christ issued in a clearer per- 
ception of the meaning of those great events, and 
a higher view of our Lord Himself. We may trace 
in particular a development of two doctrines — the 
doctrine of the Atonement, and the doctrine of the 
Person of Christ. The most elementary thought on 
these subjects is found in the speeches recorded in 
Acts. We have an advance on this in 1 Peter, 
and a more marked progress in St. Paul's wiitings. 
There is also a certain development of Pauline 
teaching in the course of the Apostle's successive 
writings, especially with regard to the Divine glory 
of Christ and His mystical union with the Church. 
The doctrine of Christ is still further advanced by 
St. John. 

The most conspicuous development of thought in 
the Apostolic Church was so early completed that 
happily it has ceased to be of more than historical 
interest. This was the great expansion and spiritual- 
ising of the whole conception of Christianity that 
emerged from the conflict with Judaism. 

At first the followers of our Lord had no idea of 
breaking |oflf from the religion of their fathers. The 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 115 

new age was to be linked on to the old age, without 
any revolution intervening. The first Christians — 
all of them Jews — did not renounce the ordinances 
of their national religion. They kept the fasts and 
feasts; when in Jerusalem, visited the temple for 
prayer at the regular hours; subjected themselves 
to Jewish vows; and circumcised their children. 
They had their distinguishing marks in baptism and 
the Lord's Supper, and in their own gatherings for 
prayer and conference. But at first they were only a 
party within the community (atpco-19, Acts xxiv. 14), 
like that of the Pharisees (xxvi. 5). With their 
assiduous piety they could not but win the approval of 
the Pharisees, who were by far the most important 
religious leaders of their day, and in fact they were 
generally popular (ii. 47). Their position was not 
very consistent, because, while they were rigorous 
observers of the law, they held that forgiveness of 
sins was given by the free mercy of God through 
Jesus Christ. Subsequently St. Paul showed that 
this doctrine of grace was inconsistent with the 
maintenance 'of the law. But the early Christians 
did not perceive the contrast, simply because they did 
not think out their principles to ultimate results. 
Meanwhile their real life was in the new faith. 
Unlike the Pharisees, they looked for salvation to 
Christ, not the law. 

The first hint of a separation arose out of the 
deeper spiritual teaching of a Hellenist, St. Stephen. 
It cannot be said that the Hellenists as a body 
were more spiritual than the Hebfew-speaking Jews. 
They were in this position, however — that, living out 



116 THE THEOLOGY OF 

of reach of the temple services, they were likely to be 
freer from the fascination of ritualism, while owing 
to their access to Greek culture they were prepared to 
take a large and philosophical view of things. St. 
Stephen was accused of practically the same offence 
with which our Lord was charged before the high- 
priest — viz^, blaspheming the temple (Mark xiv. 58 ; 
Acts vi. 13, 14). This fact should make us pause 
before we assert that his views are to be attributed 
to his Hellenism. Would it not be more just at 
best to say that his Hellenism simply prepared him 
for appreciating the broader aspect of the teaching 
of Jesus Christ? St. Stephen perceived the truth 
which our Lord had taught to the Samaritan woman 
(John iv. 21) — viz., the essential spirituality of 
worship. But the perception of this truth prepared 
for the inevitable conclusion that the formal, local, 
provincial temple ceremonies at Jerusalem could not 
be permanent. If Christianity is to triumph, it must 
supersede those venerable relics of an august antiquity 
— the sacrifices of animals by Jewish priests. St. 
Stephen's more spiritual apprehension of the teaching 
of Christ led to his becoming the protomartyr, and 
it also led to a severe persecution of other Chris- 
tians, because strict Jews now began to see danger to 
their national cult. Previous persecutions had been 
but occasional, and then only touching the leaders of 
the new movement ; the ground of them had been 
the perception that to proclaim publicly that Jesus 
of Nazareth was the Messiah amounted to nothing 
Jess than an indictment of the Jewish leaders for the 
murder of their God-sent King. At length — chiefly 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 117 

owing to the teaching of St. Stephen — the persecution 
acquired a more popular basis. We have no evidence 
to show that the Hebrew-speaking Christians supported 
the great Evangelist in the new position of spiritual 
freedom he had taken up. In point of fact, they 
seem to have held aloof from him — for only Hellen- 
ists conducted his burial. Moreover, as yet no idea 
of dispensing with circumcision had been entertained 
in any section of the Church. St. Stephen did not 
say a word on that subject. 

A much more important advance in doctrine 
accompanied the rapid conversion of Gentiles. There 
is no reason to suppose that the early Jewish Chris- 
tians ever intended to confine the gospel to their own 
race — Jews were proverbially zealous in proselytising. 
But at first it was held that if Gentiles were to be 
admitted to the full privileges enjoyed by Jewish 
Christians, they must submit to the rite of circum- 
cision — i.e., that they could not be Christians without 
becoming Jews. Subsequently, however, the immense 
success of St. Paul's missions among the Gentiles 
forced on the question whether this was a correct 
view. Men of large mind began to see the absurdity 
of it. The course of events was solving the problem 
for others too. It was contrary to the spirit of the 
free gospel which was winning these converts, to 
assert that they should be put under the yoke of 
the law of an alien race, especially as that yoke 
represented a more elementary and narrow form of 
religious culture. Before any controversy arose on 
the subject Gentiles were admitted into the Church. 
St. Peter was constrained to entertain enlarged ideas 



118 THE THEOLOGY OF 

of the grace of God in the case ^ Cornelias (Acts 
X. 34, 35). At Antioch there grew np a powerful 
Grentile Church, in which the disciples were first 
called " Christians " (xL 26). The Latin form of the 
title, need not discredit the narratdTe in the Acts, 
seeing that Roman influence was powerful in the 
East. Now names are means of distinguishing per- 
sons and things, and the invention of the foreign 
name '' Christian " marks the distinction hetween 
those who bear it and Jews; it shows that the 
Church is not identical with the synagogue. 

The strict Jewish Church at Jerusalem could not 
at once agree to this freer position, and difficulties 
arose in Antioch itself, which led to the so-called 
council at Jerusalem. The Mother Church was then 
simply overwhelmed by St. Paul's testimony to the 
work of Gk)d among the heathen ; against its preju- 
dices it bowed to the logic of facts, and conceded the 
main question in dispute — that Gentile Christians 
•were not to be compelled to undergo circumcision. 
But it put these Christians in the position of Proselytes 
of the Gate (Acts xv. 28, 29). That did not settle 
the controversy, because it resulted in a division of the 
Christian Church into two sections, which could not 
commune together, could not partake of a common 
agape. It appears that this state of schism was 
deliberately contemplated in the regulation that, while 
St. Paul was at liberty to visit the Gentiles, the three 
leaders, James, Peter, and John, were to confine their 
ministry to the Jews (Gal. ii. 9).* 

• Attempts have been made to throw discredit on the his- 
toricity of the narrative in the Acts, becanse St. Paul does not 



THE NEW TESTAMEIs'T 119 

The next forward step was taken with the concur- 
rence of St. Peter. When that large-hearted though 
timorous Apostle was at Antioch he consented to live 
on equal terms of brotherly communion with Gentile 
Christians. Although the strict party of St. James 
subsequently persuaded him to withdraw from this 
daring position, it is evident from the rebuke ad- 
ministered to him by St. Paul that his real conviction 
was clearly enough on the liberal side. It is therefore 
plain from what we read in the Epistle to the 
Galatians that the genuine standpoint of St. Peter 
was essentially at one with that of St. Paul in this 
matter (Gal. ii. 14-16). Probably St. James never 
reached that standpoint; at all events, the New 
Testament gives no hint that he did, and later 
tradition represents him as a strict observer of the 
law.* Still, although the opposers of St. Paul's views 
were of the party of St. James and commended by 
him, we cannot say that the Jerusalem leader would 

refer to the council or the decree in his account of his visits to 
Jerusalem, which he records in his Epistle to the Galatians. 
It is certainly a singular omission. But St. Pa ul was not in 
the mood to appeal to the authority of the other Apostles when 
writing to his Galatian converts and vindicating his own 
apostleship. Therefore perhaps it is that he only refers to his 
own private intercourse with the Apostles. Then the decree 
did not go so far as St. Paul. It did not declare that " cir- 
cumcision availeth nothing." It left it, as of value, for Jews ; 
and his antagonists might quote this against him. At all 
events, it would not much serve his purpose. Besides, St. Paul 
does show that the main point was conceded. He states that 
Titus, though a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised 
(Gal. ii. 3). 

* Euseb., E. E., ii. 23. 



120 THE THEOLOGY OF 

have sanctioned all they did. There is no evidence 
that he ever put himself in active opposition to 
St. Paul, but the contrary (ver. 9). Most likely he 
simply maintained the position agreed upon at the 
Jerusalem discussion. St. Paul went much further, 
and declared that circumcision was nothing (vi. 15). 
It was possible to maintain that though the law was 
not essential for Gentile Christians it might be helpful 
to them, and that it might be freely adopted, though 
it should not be authoritatively imposed. This was 
the idea of the Galatian perverts. St. Paul offers it 
uncompromising opposition. The logical consequence 
of his view must be that even for Jews the law is 
no longer binding, nor even serviceable. This al«o is 
taught, by St. Paul, who shows that the law is entirely 
superseded by the gospel. Thus at length, though 
as yet only among the Pauline Churches, Christianity 
emerges in complete emancipation from Judaism. 

THE PRIMITIVE TYPE 

I. THE EARLY PREACHING 

Even during our Lord's lifetime on earth the 
Apostles were sent forth to preach repentance (Mark 
vi. 12). But then their training was incomplete, 
and the chief work of Christ not accomplished. 
Jesus had not died and risen, and the Pentecostal gift 
had not been received. Therefore we must come 
down to a subsequent period for the real commence- 
ment of apostoUc teaching. This we have in the 
speeches of St. Peter recorded by St. Luke in the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 121 

Acts of the Apostles. The archaic tone of those 
speeches, the absence of doctrines that appear later 
in the New Testament, their very deficiencias, testify 
to their genuineness. 

The central theme of the preaching of the Apostles 
was the Messiahship of Jesus. It may be said most 
literally that they preached Christ. They declared 
that Jesus of Nazareth whom the Jews had rejected 
was in truth the long-looked-for Redeemer -and King 
of Israel. But it has often been pointed out that the 
full Divinity of our Lord is not set forth in St. Peter's 
speeches. His words even assign a distinctly sub- 
ordinate position to Christ. He says nothing of pre- 
existence. The glory of Christ is subsequent to His 
earthly life ; and it is received from the hands of God. 
Jesus is called " Lord," but in distinction from Jehovah 
(Acts ii. 34). The name " Son of God " is not given 
to Him by St. Peter* — although, according to the 
first Evangelist, the Apostle had used it in his great 
confession (Matt. xvi. 16). On the other hand, a new 
and favourite title is " the Servant " (6 Trats) of God. 
This is used by St. Peter (Acts iii. 13, 26), and it is 
found in a prayer of the Jerusalem Church (iv. 27, 30). 
Still, our Lord is emphatically " the Servant," " the 
holy Servant," and " the Holy and Righteous One " 
(iii. 14). Anointed with the Holy Spirit and with 
power. He went about doing good because God was 
with Him (x. 38). God has made Him both Lord 
and Christ (ii. 36), so that He is " Lord of all " (x. 36). 

* In Acts viii. 37 (Authorised Version) the phrase is used by 
the Ethiopian eunuch, but this verse is wanting in the best 
authorities. 



122 THE THEOLOGY OF 

God has exalted Him to be " a Prince and a Saviour " 
(v. 31). When St. Peter says it was impossible that 
death should hold Him (ii. 24), the analogy of other 
passages leads us to think he is resting the assertion 
on the prophecy which he proceeds to quote (vers. 
25-8), the promise of which cannot be broken ; but, 
as Lechler says, " this does not exclude the fact that 
the victorious might and fulness of life, prophetically 
predicted of God*s Anointed, was the internal ground 
of the promise as well as of its fulfilment."* St. 
Peter may well have known more than he chose to 
state in his first exposition of the gospel to the Jews. 
The famous confession at Caesarea almost compels us 
to conclude that he did not reveal the deepest mysteries 
of his belief in his elementary missionary addresses. 
Still, the fact remains that these addresses are ele- 
mentary and primitive in type, and leave room for 
further development in later Expositions of Christian 
truth. The same reflections may apply to teachings 
concerning the death of Christ. 

In preaching that Jesus was the Christ the Apostles 
were confronted by the obvious objection that He 
had not fulfilled the Messianic hopes of the Jews, 
but had apparently failed to make good His claims, 
and had come to an ignominious end. They dealt 
with this objection very thoroughly. Here lay their 
great task. Appealing to ancient Scripture on the 
one hand, and to the testimony of recent events 
on the other, they produced a reply which may be 
analysed into five pleas. 

* Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (Eng. Trans.), vol. i., 
p. 273. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 123 

First, they corrected the idea of the Christ by means 
of that very literature on which the Jews professed to 
build their hopes. The customary reading of the Old 
Testament was too narrow. The Jewish imagination 
had dwelt almost exclusively on the picture of kingly 
glory. St. Peter called attention to the prediction 
of a " prophet " like Moses (Acts iii. 22), and in 
common with his fellow-disciples spoke of Jesus in 
His Messianic character as God's " Servant " (e.^., 
iii. 13 ; iv. 27). These two forgotten titles, " prophet " 
and " servant," exactly fitted the great Teacher, who 
came " not to be ministered unto, but to minister." 

In the second place, the Apostles showed that the 
death of Christ had been predicted, so that it was 
not an unforeseen casualty ; much less was it a fatal 
disaster, wrecking the scheme of His life-work : it 
had its place in that scheme (Acts ii. 23). Accord- 
ing to the record in Acts the Apostles went no 
further in expounding the mystery of the Cross to 
their first Jerusalem audiences. Read in the light 
of the later teaching of St. Peter himself — not to 
mention St. Paul or St. John — this seems to be a 
most meagre explanation. There is not a word about 
any purpose in the death of Christ, any end to be 
achieved by that awful tragedy. It is not associated 
with atonement for sin, nor with the redemption 
of the world, as in other New Testament writings? 
although Christ Himself had more than once hinted 
at these profound consequences (Mark x. 45 ; 
xiv. 24). Still, imperfect as it is in this respect, the 
mission-preaching marks a distinct advance on the 
previous views of the Apostles, as well as a startling 



124 THE THEOLOGY OF 

contradiction to prevalent Jewish opinions. It is 
much to make it plain that the Saviour of the world 
must die, that the unexpected picture of a crucified 
Christ must henceforth take its place in the core of 
the gospel. Then the bare admission of the necessity 
of the death of Christ could not but rouse inquiries 
concerning the purpose of it. Why was this awful 
event necessary ? St. Peter replies, Because it was 
predicted; he says the same of the resurrection. 
Subsequent thought, however, must needs push the 
inquiry further back. A fuller answer would be 
suggested by the allusions to Isa. liii., which were 
now resorted to, although at first the key to the 
enigma supplied by that famous prophecy was not laid 
hold of even by those who had insight enough to apply 
the idea of " The Servant of the Lord " to Jesus Christ. 
The resurrection of our Lord supplied a third item 
in the reply of the Apostles to the objection of the 
Cross, and their most triumphant vindication of the 
claims of Christ. They place it in the front of their 
teaching, exulting over it with boundless delight. 
St. Peter argues that this also is predicted in Scrip- 
ture (Acts ii. 25-8). But he does not now satisfy 
himself with the appeal to prophecy, as he did in 
the case of the crucifixion. He advances beyond this, 
and speaks of a fact known in experience. Herein 
lies the claim of the Apostles to preach Christ with 
boldness. They are witnesses of the resurrection. 
The foundation of their preaching is personal testi- 
mony. It is not their business to argue out a system 
of theology from given facts; much less do they 
dream of expoimding abstract speculations. Their 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 125 

task is to declare, in statements of which our gospels 
are specimens, what they have seen with their own 
eyes, first of the earthly life of Jesus, and then 
of His resurrection. This final event was a vindica- 
tion of His claims, because it was a plain proof that, 
though men had rejected Him, G-od had owned and 
honoured Him. Hence the importance attached to 
the often-repeated statement that He had been raised 
up by God, The resurrection proved that the Jews 
were mistaken, that the Christians were fight, that 
Jesus was the Messiah. It also showed that He was 
still living. The Apostles did not preach a dead Christ. 
But if He is living, He can manifest Himself again. 

This reflection conducted the Apostles to a further 
point — their fourth. They vindicated the Messiah- 
ship of Christ by preaching His future advent. He 
would come again, and then He would exercise 
those offices of King and Judge which He had not put 
in force during His earthly ministry in the manner 
expected of Him. This topic and the consequences 
deduced from it lent to the preaching of • the Apostles 
a striking resemblance to that of John the Baptist. 
In both cases there was a prediction of the coming of 
Christ ; in both this coming was described as an occasion 
of supreme glory, but also one of severe judgment ; 
in both the people were urged to repentance as a 
preparation for the great and terrible day of the 
Lord. But there were differences. John the Baptist, 
while preparing for the coming of One who had never 
yet appeared on earth, with the common lack of 
perspective which appertains to prophecy, did not 
distinguish between the times when the Messiah 



126 TU/j THEOLOGY OF 

would exercise His several functions. He knew of 
no first advent in humiliation to be followed by a 
second advent in glory. But the Apostles had seen 
the character of the first advent and the abrupt 
conclusion of the earthly life. They were thus 
prepared to declare that the glory and judgment 
must belong to a second coming of Christ. Then, 
having seen Jesus, they did not simply predict the 
coming of a Messiah, they foretold the return of the 
Christ whom they knew. Further, by thus knowing 
Him they were better prepared to describe the 
character of His reign. While following the Baptist 
in his announcement of judgment and chastise- 
ment, they were able to say more of the "times of 
I'efreshing " and the beneficent effects of the coming 
• of Christ. 

It has been said that the Apostles were mistaken 
in their expectation of the speedy return of Christ. 
We must remember that in their case as well as in 
that of John the Baptist prophecy lacks perspective, 
so that the Apostles would picture to themselves and 
to their hearers all that is implied in the advent 
of Christ in one scene. But that which was most 
pressing in its importance, the impending doom of the 
guilty nation and the coming of Christ to judge those 
who had rejected Him, was speedily realised in the 
destruction of Jerusalem. It is objected, further, 
that the Apostles still clung too closely to Jewish 
materialistic conceptions of the kingdom of God ; 
that instead of perceiving the spiritual nature of that 
kingdom as conceived by Christ Himself, they still 
anticipated a visible splendour of dominion, which, as 



THE FEW TESTAMENT 127 

it did not appear during the earthly life of our Lord, 
must come later — z.e., that they did not change their 
conception of the Messianic hope, but only postponed 
the fulfilment of it. There may be some truth in this 
criticism. We know that the Apostles were entangled 
in these old Jewish notions but a few weeks before 
their first preaching recorded in Acts, and it is 
contrary to the analogy of spiritual development to 
suppose that they entirely escaped from them by one 
sudden leap into higher truth. Still, the endowment 
at Pentecost had already enlarged and elevated their 
ideas to a wonderful degree. Their preaching of the 
second advent was very different from the Messianic 
conceptions of current Jewish thought ; it was more 
ethical, more spiritual. Christ would come to judge 
the nation, and to bring about a restoration of all 
things in a Divine order (Acts iii. 21). 

Now, it may be asked, on what grounds did they 
base this expectation % It was not enough that the 
first advent had not accomplished all that was hoped 
from it. This was taken in conjunction with the fact 
that Jesus was proved to be the Christ by His resur- 
rection. Therefore He must perform all the Messianic 
functions; and as some of these remained still in 
abeyance they must be exercised in the future. Then 
the resurrection pointed to this end more directly ; for 
Jesus, having risen, was alive again, exalted to the 
right hand of God. Thus He was prepared to return. 

Lastly, His gift of the Holy Spirit was a herald of 
His second advent. This is the ffth vindication of 
the Messiahship of Jesus. The wonderful Pentecostal 
advent of the Spirit is directly connected with the 



128 THE THEOLOGY OF 

exaltation of Christ. Being exalted to the right hand 
of God, and having received of the Father the promise 
of the Holy Spirit, " He hath poured forth this which 
ye see and hear " (ii. 33). Thus the evident working 
of the Spirit among men is a proof of the heavenly 
activity of Christ, and of His lofty position in 
relation to His Father. It is also a sign of His 
second advent, because it is a preparation for " the 
day of the Lord." St. Peter argues this point by 
quoting a prophecy of Joel, which tells how in the last 
da}s God will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh, upon 
all classes, young and old, bond and free ; so that it 
shall no longer be confined to prophets and official 
personages. Now that is just what happened at 
Pentecost, when the Spirit came upon the wlioh 
Church. Therefore St. Peter reasons these must be 
the last days, and the great day of the Lord must 
be near. He was right, as history proved. The old 
order of Judaism was doomed, and its overthrow 
soon followed; the new order of Christianity with 
the age of the Spirit was already dawning. 

On the basis of this preaching of Christ the Apostles 
advanced to practical appeals. First, like John the 
Baptist, they called for repentance. The demand was 
more urgent than in the preaching of the forerunner, 
for a new sin had been added to the old tale of guilt, a 
sin so fearful that it almost obliterated the thought 
of all other sin. The Jews had denied the Holy and 
Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted 
them ; they had killed the Prince of life. The sin of 
sins was the wilful rejection of Christ. Yet even for 
those who had been guUty of this enormity there was 



THE FEW TESTAMENT 129 

a gospel. This was in the veiy Christ whom the 
Jews had rejected. " In none other is there salvation" 
(Acts iv. 12). Salvation, then, is closely connected 
with the person of Jesus Christ. Repentance, for- 
giveness, the endowment of the Holy Ghost — ^these 
three gifts are all received through Christ. He brings 
about repentance, for He comes, as St. Peter says to 
the Jews, " to bless you, in turning away every one of 
you from your iniquities " (iii. 26) ; and He is exalted 
"to give repentance to Israel" (v. 31). This must 
mean that He leads those who submit to Him into 
a contrite, penitent state of mind. Then He grants 
forgiveness. Men are urged to repent and be bap- 
tised in the name of Christ for the remission of sins 
(ii. 38). Jesus is appointed to give remission of sins 
(v. 31). Therefore He is a " Saviour." He is also 
" the Prince of life," because He bestows the positive 
gift of life (iii. 15). But the new, special, most 
significant blessing received through Jesus Christ is 
the endowment of the Holy Spirit (ii. 38). Various 
secondary boons also accompany the gospel : thus the 
healing of a lame man is an illustration of the power 
for good that dwells in the name, i.e., that springs 
from the authority, of our Lord (iii. 16). 

The Apostle is careful to point out the conditions 
on which these boons are offered. The first is the 
action of the human will in repentance. While Christ 
gives repentance, men are exhorted to exercise the gift. 
They must still turn with an effort, although the 
power to do so comes from Christ. Another condition 
is expressed by the rite of baptism. Therefore 
St. Peter says, " Repent ye, and be baptised every 



130 THE THEOLOGY OF 

one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission 
of your sins " (ii. 38). Baptism would be familiar to 
all who knew of the work of John the Baptist. It 
would plainly signify the washing away of the old 
manner of life by an open act of renunciation of the 
past ; its reference to the name of Christ would also 
suggest consecration to Him. The convert publicly 
and confessedly gave himself up to Christ by sub- 
mitting to the rite. But that this external ordinance 
was not in itself an essential condition for the reception 
of Christ's highest gifts is proved by the fact that 
Cornelius and his friends were baptised with the 
Holy Ghost before they had been baptised with water. 
Faith is not so clearly expounded in these sermons 
among the conditions of salvation as it is in St. Paul's 
writings, where it stands alone, the one supreme 
requisite, the sole human condition of justification. 
But it is implied in the act of submission to baptism, 
and it is expressly named as the condition on which 
the lame man at the temple was healed (iii. 16). 

II. THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES 

It would be manifestly unreasonable to assume 
that St. James knew no more Christian truth than 
he set forth in his one brief letter, especially as 
his purpose in writing was to offer practical advice, 
not to expound a creed. Nevertheless, remembering 
how, whenever St. Paul and St. John had occasion to 
write with an equally practical aim in view, they 
could not refrain from alluding to some of those 
deeper ideas of which we have never a hint in 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 131 

St. James, are we not bound to conclude that his 
whole conception of Christianity was more elemen- 
tary and less speculative than that of the later 
New Testament writers ? In one direction, however, 
the primitive nature of the Epistle contributes very 
materially to its value. St. James keeps remarkably 
close to the ethical teaching of our Lord ; he gives 
us more echoes of the words of Jesus than can be 
traced through the whole range of the other New 
Testament epistles. 

The teaching of St. James is all shaped and coloured 
by the fact that throughout he regards the Christian 
religion in the light of a perfected law. Here the 
question is raised, Does he mean the old Jewish 
law, or is he simply designating the sum of Christian 
principles under the title " law " ? His quotation of 
definite commandments suggests the former view 
{e.g,j James ii. 10, 11) ; but his description of the law 
itself favours the latter. Thus he characterises it 
as a " perfect " law — apparently in distinction from 
another law, which can only be the Mosaic law, and 
yet which is imperfect ; and then he calls it the law 
"of hberty " (i. 25) — a phrase which seems to indicate a 
law voluntarily accepted and obeyed from an internal 
desire, not merely under external compulsion, cor- 
responding to Jeremiah's great thought of the law 
written on the heart, and implying the liberty which 
always accompanies the obedience that is prompted 
by love. St. James seems to be following our Lord's 
teaching of the fulfilment of law, a reference to which 
may reconcile the two views. He is not thinking of 
a law radically difierent from that of his fathers ; 



132 THE THEOLOGY OF 

he is contemplating the old venerated Torah of Israel, 
carried up to perfection by Christ, so that its under- 
lying principles are brought to light, fully developed, 
and realised in conduct. Attempts have been made 
to separate the ceremonial from the moral law in 
this relation. St. James does not indicate any such 
distinction. He never says that the ceremonial law 
has been superseded, and we have no reason to think 
that he did not keep it. But, then, on the other 
hand, it is a most significant fact that he never 
includes it in his admonitions, never even alludes 
to it. A Pharisee would have directed his most 
earnest exhortations to this point. Plainly, then, 
St. James is far from Pharisaism. He rather 
reminds us of the attitude of the prophets who 
preferred justice and mercy to ritual and sacrifice. 
With him, as with Christ, the true ritual of worship 
{Oprja-Keia) consists in deeds of kindness and the 
maintenance of purity (i. 27). Even though it is 
not formally abandoned, the law of ceremonies must 
fade away by degrees in the atmosphere of these 
more real and human interests. 

In opposition to the observation of the perfect 
law of liberty stands the dreadful fact of sin, the 
genesis and history of which are briefly sketched by 
St. James. As to its parentage, he distinctly teaches 
that this cannot be traced back to God, who neither 
tempts nor is tempted (i. 13). Sin springs from the 
evil impulses of human nature. Every man is 
tempted by his own desires (iSuis hrijSvfxCas, vers. 
14, 15). The seat of these desires is the bodily 
organism (iv. 1). How the desires come to be 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 133 

there St. James does not say ; so he leaves the 
dark question of the origin of evil unanswered, 
excepting negatively, in forbidding us to trace it to 
God. He makes no reference to the ein of Adam 
and its effect on the race. The thought of one's 
" own " desires leading to sin might suggest the 
notion of hereditary evil, or, at all events, it might 
lead us to suppose that evil is innate. But then 
St. James does not call the desires sins; on the 
contrary, he plainly implies that they are not in 
themselves sinful, because sin only appears at a 
later stage, as the child of desire — like the foul 
worm that is produced by an inoffensive insect. 
To account for this new thing we must admit an- 
other factor — the human will in which the desire 
breeds. St. James does not directly name the will, 
it is true ; but his tone of admonition clearly assumes 
its existence. He is not a fatalist diagnosing the 
inevitable symptoms of evil regarded only as disease ; 
he assumes the attitude of a moralist, warning his 
readers against the indulgence of selfish desires which 
lead to sin. In one place he mentions the devil as 
a provoker of sin. This would suggest that the 
desires previously noted may have been excited by 
the tempter. Still, the responsibility for actual sin 
cannot be shifted over to Satan, because he may be 
resisted, and when he is resisted he will flee (iv. 7). 
So here again the ultimate responsibility is to be 
traced back to the free action of man. Lastly, the 
world is referred to as a source of defilement (i. 27). 
We cannot attribute to St. James anything like a 
Manichaean horror of the physical universe. By " the 



134 THE THEOLOGY OF 

world" the early Christians meant human society 
in its alienation from God with its corrupt habits 
and fatal fascinations. They who are most deeply 
immersed in the affairs* of this evil human world 
are most liable to its deadly snares. To St. James 
the rich appear to constitute a cruel, wicked section 
of society ; while God's chosen people are to be found 
among the poor; and, in point of fact, the early 
Christians were for the most part persons of the humbler 
classes of society. This reminds us of the teaching 
of our Lord when He spoke of the impossibility of 
rich men being saved without a miracle (Mark x. 25). 
St. James has been called an Ebionite on account 
of these two characteristics of his teaching — his 
adhesion to the law, and his denunciation of the 
rich. The title is an anachronism; but the sect 
which in later times was known by it sprang from 
the Church party of which St. James had been the 
leader, and their teaching may be described as an 
exaggeration of his tendencies. 

With St. James the final outcome of sin is death 
(James i. 15) — a dark and dreadful idea that recurs 
in all the Kew Testament writers. 

Some critics have contended that St. James does 
not really advance beyond Judaism into true Chris- 
tianity. Certainly he never mentions the " gospel,'* 
and yet he has an evangelic faith, although he does 
not make it his business to preach it in an epistle 
addressed to fellow-Christians, men and women 
already evangelised. Thus he teaches the forgiveness 
of sins (v. 15). The sinner can be converted from 
the error of his ways, his soul saved from death, and 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 135 

his multitude of sins covered (ver. 20). The im- 
mediate application of this great truth is to the case 
of an unfaithful Christian, whom his brothers are 
exhorted to reclaim (ver. 19). But it is impossible to 
limit it to one particular class. Then with St. James, 
as with St. John, the Christian life begins in a new 
birth ; but what is most peculiar to the earlier writer 
in this connection is that the origin of the new birth 
is attributed to the " word" of God (i. 18) — a thought 
which may be traced back to our Lord's teaching in 
the parable of the Sower, where the seed is " the 
word'* (Mark iv. 14). According to St. James, the 
word is "implanted" (James i. 21) — an idea which 
again suggests Jeremiah's new covenant with the 
law written in the heart. Thus the word has become 
internal ; it is comprehended and appropriated as an 
intimate principle of life. It has been implanted by 
God, who is the Originator of the new life. Some 
have asserted that this vital " word " is just the well- 
known old law.* But St. James does not say so, and 
he leaves us free to think that he agrees with the 
Apostles in treating the preaching of Christ as the 
method through which people are led into the king- 
dom. If we take this view, the " word " will be just 
the gospel message. St. James makes no reference 
to the death of Christ, or any objective condition of 
redemption. He simply connects the forgiveness of 
sins with prayer (v. 15). 

The part of the Epistle which has attracted most 
discussion is that in which its author considers the 
mutual relationship of faith and works, and their 
* E,g,, Beyschlag, vol, i., p, 346, 



136 THE THEOLOGY OF 

T5onnection with justification. Although it was once 
regarded by many as a direct assault on St. Paul, a 
more careful criticism has rejected that verdict. But 
now, while admitting that St. James was not oppos- 
ing St. Paul's doctrine, but only an antinomianism 
which the Apostle would certainly have repudiated, 
Pfleiderer has suggested that the Epistle was 
written in opposition to a Gnostic perversion of 
Paulinism, which the author himself mistook for the 
system of St. Paul * — a wild and needless conjecture ! 
St. James does not speak lightly of faith. On the 
contrary, he honours it highly, emphatically desig- 
nating the Christian religion " the faith of our Lord 
Jesus Christ " (ii. 1). He commends some who are 
poor in this world's goods, because they are " rich in 
faith" (ver. 5). He encourages the prayer of faith 
both at the beginning of his Epistle (i. 6) and near 
the close (v. 15). Great distress and trouble arise 
because men will not thus pray (iv. 2). Nevertheless, 
faith, standing alone, will not save a man. Works 
must go with faith in eftecting the perfect result 
(ii. 22). No doubt this is not St. Paul's way of 
writing ; but if St. James wrote before the Apostle, 
he could not be answering St. Paul's Epistles, and 
clearly he had quite other thoughts in his mind. 
There were pretentious, hollow characters in the 
Church, given to much talking, but neghgent of 
their duty ; and to condemn these people St. James 
denounces the iaith that is without works, as well 
as the words that are without deeds (i. 23). It 
is plain that the faith he is here thinking of is the 
* UrchnsteiUhum^ p. 874 ff. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 137 

bare intellectual belief, which was witnessed in the 
demons when the possessed trembled at the Divine 
name uttered by the exorcist (ii. 19) — a very 
different thing from the soul's grasp of God and 
Christ, which St. Paul understands by faith. " Can 
that faith save ? " asks St. James (ver. 14). But he 
knows of the other faith that can save — the faith 
that is found together with works. 

St. James is far from the Pharisees' doctrine of 
salvation by works. In the first place, with St. James 
works are not ceremonies of Jewish ritual, but deeds 
of Christian brotherhood. Then faith must be asso- 
ciated with these works to give them any efficacy. 
Lastly, St. James does not describe the two as though 
they were on a level — like a pair of horses running 
abreast to draw a chariot by their combined energy. 
They are vitally related. Faith without works is 
" dead in itself' (ii. 17) ; therefore we may conclude, 
conversely, faith with works is alive. So that when 
St. James tells us that faith without works is "barren" 
(ver. 20), we must not understand him to mean that 
works are the fertilising principle of faith — a con- 
fusing notion. Evidently his idea is that, since works 
are the fruit of a living, healthy faith, their absence 
is a proof that the faith must be ineffectual. The 
works are important as tests of the vitality and 
vigour of the faith. Thus he writes, " I by my works 
will show thee my faith " (ver. 18). The works really 
glorify the true, living faith from which they spring, 
while at the same time they distinguish it from a bare 
belief in dogmas, which is totally different. 

With this idea of faith before us we can understand 



138 THE THEOLOGY OF 

St. James's doctrine of justification. He has a different 
phase of justification before him from that which 
occupies the attention of St. Paul. The Epistle to 
the Romans discusses the justification of the sinner ; 
our Epistle is concerned with the justification of the 
righteous man. St. Paul's justification emerges at 
the beginning of the Christian life; St. James's is 
concerned with the end — just as with St. James 
salvation is regarded as a future deliverance (iv. 12). 
St. Paul is most anxious to show how a sinful man 
can be put right with Grod. Although not in formal 
expression, in heart and belief St. James is essentially 
at one with him with regard to this great first step ; 
for he teaches the free forgiveness of God and the doc- 
trine of Divine grace (i. 17; v. 15), only he does not 
regard these things forensically as involved in a legal 
justification. But in his discussion of justification 
St. James has in view the case of Christian people 
and their judgment by Christ after death or at the 
second advent, when their faith can only be vindicated 
by their life. The bald profession of piety, the glib 
use of unctuous phrases, or the purely intellectual 
hold of a correct creed, will be of no avail before the 
judgment-seat of Christ. The only justification for a 
ChiTstian confession is Christian conduct. The justi- 
fication of good people which is here discussed is a 
familiar idea in the Old Testament ; and therefore 
the use of the term " justification " by one who lived 
so much in the atmosphere of the ancient Scriptures 
as St. James is quite natural, without any reference 
to that totally different phase of justification which 
at a later time came to be expounded by St. Paul. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 139 

Although his Epistle is full of the spirit and 
teaching of Christ, St. James only mentions pur Lord 
distinctly in two places, or at most in three (i. 1 ; 
ii. 1 ; and perhaps v. 15). He says nothing of the 
pre-existence ; but we can base no argument on mere 
silence regarding a topic for the introduction of which 
there was no immediate occasion. Jesus is " Christ " 
— the Messiah ; the title has become part of His 
name. He is "our Lord," and St. James is His 
"bondservant" (8ovXos). This is the more striking 
if the writer is the brother of Jesus; he is too 
humble even to name the close relationship. Then 
he calls Jesus " the Lord of Glory," a title which 
cannot but suggest the idea of the Divinity of Christ, 
especially when we contrast it with the very different 
style in which so great a prophet as Elijah is signifi- 
cantly designated as "a man of like passions with 
us" (v. 17). Evidently to the writer Jesus Christ 
stands in a unique and immeasurably higher position. 
Moreover, St. James uses the Old Testament title 
" the Lord " in such a way that he appears to mean 
by it both " Jesus Christ " and " God " in the same 
connection. Thus a sick man is to be anointed "in 
the name of the Lord," and " the Lord " shall raise 
him up (vers. 14, 15). Now we know that Christian 
cures were wrought in the name of Christ (e.^.. 
Acts iv. 10), and therefore the reference must be to 
His name. But just before this we read of prophets 
who spake " in the name of the Lord " (James v. 10) ; 
of " the end of the Lord " — Le,, the end God brought 
to Job's tragedy ; and " how the Lord is full of pity, 
and merciful" (ver. 11); in all of which cases the 



140 THE THEOLOGY OF 

reference is plainly to Jehovah. A person who did 
not accept the Divinity of Christ, even if he were 
a careless, inaccurate writer, would certainly shrink 
from confusion on such a vital point as this ; and 
St. James's words cannot be accounted for except 
by the explanation that he did indeed believe in 
.the Divinity of our Lord. 

Finally, it is to be noted that St. James flashes out 
occasional brilliant thoughts on the character and 
glory of Gk)d, whom he names poetically " Father of 
Lights " (i. 17), apparently as the Maker and Preserver 
of the heavenly bodies. God is more glorious than 
these His works, more constant than the calm, 
orderly heavens ; for in Him is " no variableness '* — 
like that of the changeable moon and even the sun, 
which is subject to eclipse — and " no shadow caused 
by turning," like that which falls on the earth when 
by the revolution of the heavens, as it seems, the 
sun sinks beneath the horizon. While the glorious 
changelessness of God is thus accentuated, His 
Fatherhood is also prominent throughout the Epistle. 
Here again, as with his ethics, St. James follows 
the teaching of Christ. The Supreme is "our God 
and Father" (i. 27), "the Lord and Father'' (iii. 9). 
The Third Person of the Trinity is not named in 
the Epistle ; but the mention of heavenly gifts, such 
as wisdom from above (i. 5) and the implanted word 
(ver. 21), suggests the exercise of precisely the same 
Divine influence as that which is elsewhere expressly 
ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 141 



m. LATER PETRINE THEOLOGY 
1 PETER 

The First Epistle of St. Peter represents a decidedly 
more advanced stage of Christian thought than 
that indicated by the Apostle's speeches recorded in 
Acts. It is evidently one of the later books of the 
New Testament, because it has many allusions to 
passages in St. PauFs Epistle to the Romans, and 
possibly some to the Epistle to the Ephesians, etc.* 
But Reuss, who maintains this view, has nevertheless 
shown clearly that St. Peter's Epistle does not contain 
the distinctive characteristics of Pauline theology. 
There is no reference to the great antithesis of law 
and gospel. Righteousness "is treated from the 
ordinary Old Testament point of view, not in St. 
Paul's peculiar identification of it with justification." 
Faith does not appear as the ground of justification ; 
the object of it is the hope of future salvation; in 
fact, hope almost takes the place of faith. The 
frequent and pathetic references to the Passion show 
a marked advance of thought beyond the speeches ; 
but while the Atonement is now ascribed to our 
Lord's suffering and death, St. Paul's special idea of 
the mystical union of the Christian with Christ in 

* See Marcus Dods, Introd.^ p. 201. The reference to St. 
Paul was pointed out by Michaelis. It is maintained by 
Reuss, Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, Beyschlag, etc. On the other 
hand, Weiss holds that St. Paul quotes 1 Peter 1 Davidson 
gives a list of the similar passages in parallel columns 
(^Iwtrod.f vol. iL, p. 414). 



142 THE THEOLOGY OF 

death and resurrection finds no place here; the 
subject is treated more objectively, and the relation of 
Christian conduct to it is found in dii^ect, conscious 
imitation. These facts indicate a more primitive type 
of theology; they prove that, though St. Peter has 
not refrained from using the writings of his great 
contemporary, he has retained his own individuality. 
It is remarkable that the quotations are almost 
confined to practical directions. St. Peter makes use 
of St. Paul's ethical teaching; in theology he still 
belongs to the earlier -school. Moreover, while he 
quotes from St. Paul, he also quotes from St. James.* 
Still, there is a real progress of thought, which is 
much in advance of that in the Epistle of St. James. 
The thought approaches St. Paul; but it also ap- 
proaches St. John. In fact, it flows in the course 
of the broadening and deepening current of New 
Testament theology. 

It has often been pointed out that the doctrinal 
peculiarity of Petrine theology is its treatment of 
Christianity as a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. 
This marked trait of the speeches reappears in our 
Epistle. But the history has moved on, the circum- 
stances are altered, and therefore the prophecies 
now referred to are of another order. Writing to 
Christians, to men and women who all believe in 
Christ, and who are grouped together in a new society, 
the Apostle has no longer any occasion to demon- 
strate the Messiahship of Jesus ; but now he has to 
show that the promised blessings of the glorious 
Messianic age will be enjoyed by Christians. Thus 
* See Marcos Dodfl» Iwtrod,^ p. 201. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 143 

we have more to do with Old Testament utterances 
concerning the people of God and their privileges. 
In the speeches St. Peter proved that Jesus was 
the Messiah in spite of His crucifixion; here he 
argues that Christians are the true people of God 
in spite of their persecutions. Thus he endeavours 
to fortify his readers by reminding them of their 
high privileges as " an elect race, a royal priesthood, 
a holy nation, a people for God's own possession " (ii. 9). 
Accordingly, while the speeches — dealing more with 
the vindication of the personal claims of Christ — 
anticipated His second advent, the Epistle points 
forward to the incorruptible inheritance of Christians 
(i. 4), and cheers the martyrs and confessors with a 
" living hope " (ver. 3). The chosen people now include 
Gentiles as well as Jews; for in times past the 
readers of the Epistle " were no people," " but now " 
they " are the people of God " (ii. 10). There is no 
indication of any special privilege for Jews; on the 
contrary, all the promised blessings are for Christians 
generally, with no thought of racial distinction. 
They who are thus privileged were ** called " by God 
(i. 15), they are His "elect" (i. 1); but their 
election was not arbitrary, it was " according to the 
foreknowledge of God the Father " (ver. 2).* 

The way in which men become the privileged people 
of God is described rather after the manner of St. 
James, and in anticipation of St. John's teaching, than 
according to St. Paul's way of representing it. The 
privilege is not to be inherited by any chosen race, as 
the Jews had imagined. The means of acquiring it is 
♦ Compare Rom. viii, 29. 



144 THE TBEOLOGY OF 

a new birth, which is effected by God, " who according 
to His great mercy begat us again " (i. 3). So Chris- 
tians are " begotten again " (ver. 23), and have become 
" new-born babes " (ii. 2). St. Peter may have heard 
of the discourse with Nicodemus ; his allusion to new- 
born babes also suggests a reminiscence of our Lord's 
impressive lesson from the little child whom He set in 
the midst of His disciples (Mark ix. 36, 37). 

From another point of view St. Peter describes the 
process by which Christians pass out of their old 
state into the new privileges as a " redemption " 
(1 Peter i. 18). This points back to the earlier cxjndi- 
tion, while the idea of new birth looks forward to the 
Christian status. The bondage from which men are 
redeemed is the original life of sin — " your vain manner 
of life handed down from your fathers" (ibid,). St. 
Peter plainly teaches that apart from Christ men live 
in sin. This wickedness must be put away (ii. 1), on 
their side, by their own effort of will, though in the 
strength of the new birth. Christians are like sheep 
formerly astray which have returned to their shepherd 
(ver. 25). Sin is considered especially to consist in 
" fleshly lusts which war against the soul " (ver. 11 ), in 
regard to which Christians are to remember that as 
God's chosen people they are pilgrims and sojourners, 
and that therefore they must not entangle themselves 
in the vices which are indulged in by those who do not 
pretend to be other than citizens of the earth. Still, 
mental sins are also noted — ^guile, hypocrisies, envies, 
etc. (ver. 1). 

like St. James, St. Peter sees the source of the 
new life in " the word of God " (i. 23). The Apostle 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 145 

defines this as ** good tidings which was . preached 
unto you " (i. 25). Thus the new life is brought about 
through the reception of the gospel. It originates in 
truth. St. Peter also speaks of our being begotten 
again " unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ " (ver. 3). This life, then, springs directly out 
of our Lord's resurrection — an idea which is expressed 
by St. Paul when he speaks of our being raised with 
Christ [e.g.^ Col. iii. 1). Therefore the word which 
regenerates must be the gospel which tells of the 
risen Christ. 

Further, this regenerating word "liveth and 
abideth " ; it is an " incorruptible " seed (1 Peter i. 23), 
just as the inheritance is " incorruptible " (ver. 4 — like 
Christ's incorruptible treasures in heaven, Matt. vi. 20), 
and the blood of Christ which redeems us is "in- 
corruptible " (1 Peter i. 18). Thus we may learn that 
the new life has lasting energy — in accordance with 
what we read elsewhere in the New Testament of 
^^ eternal life." Still, the life must be continually 
nourished ; and the source of its nourishment, like 
the first seed of its being, is truth — "the spiritual 
milk which is without guile " (ii. 2). 

The new life which is thus enjoyed by Christians 
depends entirely on the goodness of God. It is He 
who begat us, and He did so of " His great mercy " 
(i. 3). Christians have " obtained mercy " (ii. 10). 
The continuance of the Christian life depends on the 
grace of God, but He " giveth grace to the humble " 
(v. 6). We are to stand fast in the true grace of 
God (ver. 12). There are various Divine gifts, and 
Christians are "stewards of the manifold grace of 

10 



146 THE THEOLOGY OF 

God " (iv. 10). There is yet more future favour to 
be looked for. We read of a " grace that is to be 
brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ " 
(i. 13), and of Christians being " heirs of the grace of 
life " (iii. 7). St. Peter does not say one word about 
salvation through the works of the law : he attributes 
the beginning, the course, and the completion of the 
Christian life to the favour and goodness of God. It 
is appropriated by the individual in his baptism, as 
Noah was saved in the. flood — i.e., in both cases the 
water marks the crisis, though St. Peter is careful to 
note that the really important thing is not physical 
ablution, but " the interrogation of a good conscience 
towards God" (ver. 21). 

St. Peter accentuates the idea of the Fatherhood of 
God. He is " the Father " (i. 2) ; we are to address 
Him in prayer pointedly " as Father " (ver. 17) ; and to 
commit our souls to Him in well doing as "unto 
a faithful Creator" (iv. 19). Unlike St. James, St. 
Peter has several allusions to the Holy Spirit. He is 
" the Spirit of glory '' (ver. 14) ; He is " sent forth 
from heaven " (i. 12) ; He " resteth upon " Chi-istians 
— a phrase that reminds us of the Spirit like a 
dove that " abode " upon Christ (John i. 32) ; He is 
the source of sanctification (1 Peter i. 2). St. Peter 
once associates the three — the Father, the Spirit, and 
Jesus Christ (ihid.). The arrangement is unusual, but 
it has no doctrinal significance ; the Apostle is think- 
ing of the order of Christian experience, and accord- 
ingly he places the sanctification by the Spirit before 
the obedience offered to Jesus Christ as Lord which 
depends on it. He does not say that the Holy Spirit 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 147 

is sent by Christ, but he unites the Spirit with Christ 
in a manner that is peculiar to himself when he calls 
the Spirit that moved in the prophets " the Spirit of 
Christ '^(i. 11). 

Jesus is not only designated the Christ. As with 
St. James, the title " Christ " is now a proper name 
for our Lord. He is even called simply " Christ " — 
quite a favourite expression with St. Peter (e.^^., iii. 
15, 16, 18, etc.). Jesus Christ was a real man, who 
suffered and was put to death in the flesh. But in 
His spirit He was quickened (ver. 18) ; and the state- 
ment of this fact hints at some peculiar greatness 
residing in His spiritual nature. Although He is 
not called " the Son of God " in so many words, God 
is distinctly described as "the Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ," which expresses the same truth, and 
the more pointedly inasmuch as the general Father- 
hood of God is prominent in the Epistle. God's 
fatherly relation to Christ is of another order, and 
quite unique. In ii. 3 an Old Testament reference 
to Jehovah as the Lord is applied to Jesus Christ. 
Much controversy has been excited by a curious 
phrase alluded to above — " the Spirit of Christ " 
(i. 11), used as a title for the Spirit which inspired 
the ancient Hebrew prophets. Weiss and Beyschlag 
understand this to be the Spirit which afterwards 
rested on our Lord, and dwelt with Him during His 
earthly life; but it is more generally held that the 
personal Spirit of Christ is referred to, and therefore 
that the passage teaches His pre-existence. Weiss 
argues that it would be incongruous for the histori- 
cal Chi-ist to be named in the same passage as the 



148 THE THEOLOGY OF 

pre-existent Spirit of Christ — the " Spirit of Christ " 
testifying to the " sufferings of Christ " ; but Lechler 
replies that if Xpio-ro? both times denotes the per- 
sonal Christ, first before and then after His historical 
appearance, the name is not applied to different 
subjects. Then it is to be noted that Christ is said 
to have preached to the spirits in prison by His 
Spirit, which must be His personal Spirit ; for in this 
He is said to be quickened after having been put to 
death in the flesh, Thus it seems to be in harmony 
with other phrases in the Epistle to read the dis- 
puted expression as a statement that it was really 
the Divine person of Christ Himself, previous to the 
incarnation, that inspired the prophets. The pre- 
existence of our Lord seems also hinted at in the 
statement that Christ, who was foreknown before 
the foundation of the world, was manifested also at 
the end of the times (ver. 20). 

The most remarkable indication of progress of 
thought in St. Peter's teaching is seen in his treat- 
ment of the sufferings of our Lord. In the speeches 
he had shown that these sufferings had been predicted 
and had taken place within the Divine plan.* But 
he had gone no further; he had not offered any 
explanation of the plap, nor had he said that any 
good results were brought about by what our Lord 
endured. Still, the very fact that the sufferings of 
Christ were designed might have suggested that they 
must have served some purpose, although that purpose 
was not as yet discernible. Then the favourite refer- 
ence to Isaiah liii. to justify faith in a suffering Messiah 
♦ See p. 123. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 14& 

might have furnished the key to the mystery. Very 
possibly it did so later on. At all events, in his epistle 
St. Peter distinctly teaches that there was a purpose 
in the sufferings of Christ, and that this purpose was 
the redemption of men from sin. 

In this connection he writes of the death of Christ 
(iii. 18) and His blood (i. 19), laying peculiar stress 
on His sufferings. We have here a very touching 
trait of the mind of the disciple, who, having witnessed 
those sufferings and the gentleness and strength with 
which they had been borne, could never efface from 
his memory the sublime and awful picture of his 
Lord's passion. Thus, while St. Paul — who probably 
had not been present at the crucifixion — simply 
connects our redemption with the death of Christ, 
St. Peter is constrained to associate it more with the 
previous sufferings and our Lord's wonderful en- 
durance of them. His passion was definitely for our 
benefit, and that in a peculiar way. He was a 
righteous One suffering on behalf of the unrighteous, 
and for their good (iii. 18). Moreover, the death of 
Christ was sacrificial ; He is compared to a lamb with- 
out blemish and without spot (i. 19 ; see Isa. liii. 7). 
He bare our sins in His body upon the wood 
(1 Peter ii. 24). Here the cross takes the place 
of an altar, while Christ is evidently considered 
to be a Sin-offering on which the sins of men have 
been laid. Thus it is possible for His precious blood 
to redeem us (i. 19). The very reference to the 
" blood " shows that the redemption is sacrificial — 
i.e.y that we are redeemed as by a sacrifice, just 
as under the law forfeited lives were redeemed by 



160 THE TEEOLOGY OF 

sacrifices, the application of which was made by 
sprinkling blood. 

The direct result of this redemption is that its 
subjects are freed from their old sinful habits (L 18), 
and are "healed" (ii. 24). The purpose of Christ's 
death was that He might bring us to God (iii. 10), 
and that we might "live unto righteousness" (ii. 24). 
Thus the deliverance is not so much from punishment 
as from sin itself; this agrees with the notion of 
salvation as regeneration rather than as justification. 
There is nothing contradictory to the more Pauline 
ideas here, but they are not brought forward by 
St. Peter. In reflecting on this great subject, he uses 
it as a motive. We are to die to our sins (t6i<Z.), 
and live unto righteousness under the influence of 
the Cross of Christ. Then our Lord's courageous and 
patient suffering is an example for the persecuted. 
The lesson is the more impressive because the suffering 
was on our behalf. " Christ also suffered for you, 
leaving you an example, that ye should follow His 
steps" (ii. 21). 

In one famous passage St. Peter refers to a saving 
mission of Christ to the world of the dead. After 
His death He went in spirit to preach to the spirits 
in prison (iii. 19, 20). The contemporaries of Noah 
are mentioned as most ancient and proverbially 
wicked men, who were lost when the patriarch was 
saved. They are called " spirits," because the truly 
dead, those who have not the life of God in them, are 
nowhere described in the Bible as enjoying their full 
resurrection life after death, and certainly as yet they 
could have enjoyed no resurrection. They are in 



THE 2rEW TESTAMENT 151 

prison for their sin — i,e.j in the place of punishment. 
Yet even to them Christ preached. He can have 
preached nothing but a gospel, and that He did so is 
plainly shown a little later, where we read, " The 
gospel was preached even to the dead" (iv. 6). 
This mysterious episode must have been very brief, 
for Christ was duly raised from the dead (i. 3), and 
then He passed into the heavens, there to exercise 
exalted powers of government (iii. 22). 

2 PETER AND JUDE 

Inasmuch as the authorship of 2 Peter is seriously 
controverted, it would not be wise to appeal to its 
authority for theological guidance concerning any 
matters in which it did not echo what was taught 
elsewhere on a less questionable apostolic basis. 
Evidently the writer largely quotes the little Epistle 
of St. Jude, and the two Epistles should be read 
together. As a matter of fact, there is no important 
theological idea in either of them which may not 
be found in other parts of the New Testament. 
They both bear witness to the rise of error in the 
Church, and they both associate this error with loose 
morals, so that in warning their readers against 
apostasy their drift is practical. Neither of them is 
moulded to any serious degree on distinctly Pauline 
or Johannine ideas ; and although these Epistles give 
evidence of having been written later than most of the 
New Testament, and contain echoes of St. Paul, on the 
whole they reflect the primitive type of thought which 
we associate with St. James and St. Peter. Great 



152 TUE THEOLOGY OF 

weight is attadied to prophecy as a guide (2 Peter 
i. 19 ; iii. 2), hecaose it is inspired hj the Holy 
Ghobt, and is not an arhitraiy inTention of man's 
(i. 21). Jesus is Christ and Lord (ver. 2), and He is 
distinctively known as " Savionr " («.^., vcr. 1 1 ; ii 20 ; 
iiL 2). He is God's heloved Son, attested hy a Yoioe 
from heayen (i. 17). Although the doctrine of the 
Cross is not directly stated, it is plainly held, in the 
later Petrine sense, as a principle of redemption, 
because the apostates are accused of '' denying even 
the Master that bought them " (ii. 1). The Christian 
life depends on grace (iiL 18). There seems to be 
one allusion to the God-given righteousness enjoyed 
by faith — reminding us of St. Paul (i. 1); but the 
importance of right knowledge is more insisted on 
(e.g.f i. 2, 5). This knowledge is best when it 
is attained by the experience of the interior life 
(ver. 19). Sin is a bondage in the guise of liberty 
(ii. 19). The punishment of sin is destruction (vers. 
1, 3, 12). The " day of the Lord" will bring a great 
judgment and overthrow of the old order, which 
will be followed by a glorious future — " new heavens 
and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" 
(iii. 13). 

THE PAULINE TYPE 

I. THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT 
OF ST. PAUL'S THEOLOGY 

St. Paul is the great theologian of the New 
TsHtamcnt. His inspired ideas have shaped the 
thought of Christendom. In examining his teaching 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 153 

we have to inquire whether this stupendous result 
was effected on the lines of a normal evolution of 
the truth involved in the previous work of Christ ; 
or whether, as some have supposed, it was of a new 
and foreign nature, in which case the Christianity 
which conquered the Roman world cannot be called 
the doctrine of Jesus. The answer to this inquiry will 
not be discovered by the simple process of setting 
the Sermon on the Mount side by side, say, with the 
Epistle to the Romans, and noting the agreements or 
divergences between them. Three guiding thoughts 
must be borne in mind. First, Christianity consists 
at least as much in the facts of the character, the 
life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as in fiis 
verbal utterances; and therefore a theology which 
endeavours to be complete must aim at discovering 
the meaning of those facts. This is not attempted 
in the Gospels, which simply narrate the facts, while 
Paulinism explains them, and traces their influence 
on the world. Thus it is necessarily new in its 
expression of thought ; and yet if it is a correct 
explanation of the facts, it is in vital relation to the 
previous work of Christ, and must be in harmony 
with it. Second, there was an evident advance in 
doctrine corresponding to the historical progress of 
events. Not only had the course of the life of Christ 
been completed — which was not the case during the 
times covered by the Gospel narratives — but wonder- 
ful, quite unexpected occurrences in the mission-field 
and in the life of the Churches had furnished new 
materials for reflection. The victory of Christianity 
in heathen lands had opened the eyes of the less 



164 TBE THEOLOGY OF 

prejudiced to a wider view of its range; and its 
spiritual fruits in experience had enabled some to 
see deeper into its nature. St. Paul was the leader 
in this progress of knowledge. Third, since every 
mind brings to the contemplation of the problems 
it has to face its native powers and its previous 
acquirements, and since St. Paul's was a mind of 
superb genius, which had received specific intellectual 
training, and — a far more significant fact — which 
had been through the school of a rare spiritual 
experience, can we be astonished at the discovery 
that his own rich endowments bad affected his 
conception of Christianity? Above all, St. Paul laid 
claim to a specific apostolic mission, with a gospel 
received not from man, but direct from Christ, and 
a full share in the new gifts of the Spirit. If a 
great outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Church, 
with a more specific illumination for the Apostles, is 
to be accepted as a central fact in the history of these 
times, it is simply unreasonable to expect that so 
potent an influence should not have left its stamp in 
a most marked degree on such a man as the great 
Apostle of the Gentiles. 

Therefore we must be prepared to meet with 
novelty of thought. Yet this need not involve any 
contradiction of what preceded ; it may be a genuine, 
consistent evolution of the fruits of Christian truth 
in perfect agreement with the specific nature of the 
seeds sown by Jesus Christ, the essential thing being 
that the vital germ comes from Christ, while later, 
facts and experiences, and extraneous knowledge and 
thought, only furnish it with nourishing diet and the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 155 

discipline of culture. Whether this is the case or 
not we must discover by a careful examination of 
St. Paid's teaching. 

The Apostle only alludes to his early experiences as 
though they constituted a dark background against 
which the life and thought that followed his con- 
version stood out in clear, sharp contrast ; and yet 
this contrast was not absolute, for long after the 
change, which he felt to be so great that he reckoned 
himself a new man, many items of knowledge and 
many methods of reasoning, carried over from his 
previous condition, stood him in stead as an armoury 
of weapons for his Christian warfare. His training 
was exceptional to a degree. A Hellenist by birth, he 
was a Pharisee by education. Critics attempt to trace 
the two factors that thus entered into the making 
of him through his subsequent career, but in different 
proportions, according to the estimate they form of 
his teaching. Thus Pfleiderer co-ordinates them, and 
while admitting the Pharisaism to be an important 
element, lays greater stress on the Hellenism. He 
does not hold, indeed, that St. Paul studied Greek 
philosophy at first hand ; but he maintains that in an 
indirect way the Apostle was largely influenced by it, 
especially in so far as it was reflected in Alexandrian 
Hellenistic Judaism, and he gives to the Book of 
Wisdom a prominent place among the sources of 
Pauline theology.* On the other hand, Sabatier will 
allow very little to the influ^ce of Hellenism, and 
regards the Pharisaism of Saul of Tarsus as the one 
main preliminary to the life and thought derived from 
* UrchrUtcnthtim, p. 31. 



156 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Cbritttian experience.* Certainly we have no historical 
evidence of his Hellenistic training. He was probably 
taken to Jerusalem when quite a boy ; there he was 
brought up in the strictest form of rabbinical scholarship. 
He himself confesses to his intense Judaism, to his fierce 
Pharisaism (Gal. i. 13, 14). His writings reveal the fact 
that he was quite at home with his Hebrew Bible, from 
which, when necessary, he would correct the Septua- 
gint Version. They also bear witness to his familiarity 
with rabbinical modes of thought. The allegorical 
treatment of Scripture which we attribute especially to 
Alexandrian Judaism, but which was also in practice 
at Jerusalem, was handled in a thoroughly Jewish 
way by St. Paul (iv. 21-31). A deeper characteristic is 
to be discovered in the dialectical course of his thought. 
St. Paul does not merely exhort and expostulate in 
the practical style of St. James; nor does he only 
define and utter pregnant aphorisms after the manner 
of St. John. He reasons, he meets his antagonist as 
a trained logician ; but with rabbinical, not Aristotelian 
or Platonic processes. Still more vital to his system 
is his legal position. Even when rejecting the law he 
treats it from a lawyer's point of view. His whole 
attitude to the question of justification is forensic ; he 
has the proceedings of the Sanhedrim in mind when 
he regards the salvation of a soul in the light of the 
acquittal of a prisoner. Then there is no evidence 
that he was acquainted with Greek culture. The two 
or three quotations t from classical literature, which 

* The Apostle Paul (Eng. Trans.), pp. 45-56. So also 
Beyschlag, Stevens, etc. 
t Acts xvii. 28 ; 1 Cor. xv. 33 ; Titus 1. 12. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 157 

are all that the most diligent search has been able to 
find, might have been picked up second-hand in the 
course of conversation, or from casual reading. In 
fact, St. Paul is a thorough Jew by education, as 
well as by birth. Still, his divergence from the older 
Apostles is chiefly seen in his more liberal treatment 
of Gentiles and in his absolute rejection of the law as 
a means of salvation. The former course of conduct 
may have been due in some measure to his Hellenistic 
connections, because, although he was brought up at 
Jerusalem, naturally he would have maintained some 
connection with his kinsmen in Cilicia ; so that from 
the first his outlook would have been wider than that 
of the Galilean Apostles. The latter — the rejection of 
the law — was no doubt partly a conclusion drawn 
from his own experience in the failure of Pharisaism 
to satisfy his conscience, contrasted with the trium- 
phant deliverance he had received through the grace of 
God in Jesus Christ, and partly a deduction from his 
observation of the unfettered influence of the Holy 
Spirit in bringing forth the fruits of Christianity 
as freely among uncircumcised Gentiles as among 
law-abiding Jews. 

Scholars of the most opposite schools — Pfleiderer, 
Lechler, Sabatier, Beyschlag, etc. — have concurred in 
the opinion that St. Paul's conversion on the road to 
Damascus was the starting-point of his most char- 
acteristic Christian thought. No doubt, as Weiss 
remarks, " it is wrong to think of the Apostle Paul 
as from the first having no connection with the 
primitive Christian tradition." * It is not unlikely 
♦ Biblical Theology, etc., vol. i., p. 279, 



158 THE THEOLOGY OF 

that he had been one of the Cilicians with whom St. 
Stephen disputed (Acts vi. 9), and it is just possible 
that he had seen Jesus in the flesh (2 Cor. v. 16). 
The goads against which it was " hard to kick *' may- 
have been no more than the pressing facts of the 
providential history of the Church which the perse- 
cutor was vainly striving to oppose; but it is not 
reasonable to deny that they may also have consisted 
in the urgent thoughts that sprang from his previous 
knowledge of Christianity. The restless vehemence 
of his headlong course suggests that he was haunted 
by a suspicion of the insecurity of his whole con- 
tention. While witnessing the sublime spectacle of 
the martyrdom of St. Stephen, so real a man as Saul 
could scarcely have escaped the question whether after 
all the faith that inspired such heroism did not rest 
on a better foundation than the reckless blasphemy 
which was its basis according to the theory of the 
prosecution. The vision on the road to Damascus 
may have been the Divine answer to this searching 
question. Therein the startled man suddenly learned 
by his own experience that the maligned Head of the 
persecuted sect was alive in heavenly majesty. The 
result of this amazing revelation was a violent revo- 
lution of thought and life in its recipient, who saw as 
by a flash of lightning that his old position was 
hideously wrong, and that of the victims of Jewish 
bigotry absolutely right, for Jesus was indeed the 
Christ of God ! But the wonderful experience carried 
him further. Not only was it now evident that he 
must abandon his old prejudices and accept what 
hitherto had been to him, as it continued to be to his 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 159 

compatriots, an absurd paradox — the idea of a Messiah 
who had suffered a felon's death (1 Cor. i. 23); but the 
very fact that God had condescended to make such 
a revelation to so obstinate a persecutor of the 
Christians overwhelmed him with a feeling of the 
Divine goodness set over against his own unworthi- 
ness. Here was a stupendous act of grace, the effect 
of which was to crush at one blow and for ever all 
the Pharisaism of its object. Thus was he brought 
to recognise not only that the righteousness of the 
law after which he had been striving in vain was 
practically unattainable, — ^this he had learnt long 
since, to his perplexity and despair (see Ex)m. vii. 
22-4), — but that it was not what God required ; for 
had there not come to him in his sin, quite apart 
from the law, a rich revelation of Grod's Son, all 
unmerited on his part, simply sent by the supreme 
love of God? In this overwhelming experience of 
grace we may detect the genesis of St. Paul's great 
fundamental doctrine of grace. 

The subsequent teaching of St. Paul is largely 
based upon his own experience. We may discover 
in it two distinct courses of thought. First, there 
is the logical and more external presentation of 
Christianity. Naturally this is most prominent in 
controversy, where we see St. Paul arguing like a 
rabbi, although he is opposing the rabbinical tra- 
dition. In this region he regards Christian truth in 
its relation to law. Here his analogies and illustra- 
tions are drawn from the courts, and his keen, strong 
argumentation is. that of the lawyer. Second, behind 
the logic, furnishing the very axioms of his theology, 



160 THE THEOLOGY OF 

and repeatedly coming to the foreground as the self- 
evident data of all his teaching, is his own spiritual 
experience. We may call this his mysticism. Scho- 
lasticism, both Catholic and Protestant, has had more 
sympathy for the first than for the second element of 
St. Paul's theology ; and since most theologians prove 
to be possessed of scholastic sympathies, great injustice 
has been done to the richest contents of the religious 
thought of St. Paul. But when we pass beyond the 
outworks of dialectics to this inner citadel, we reach 
what is the true secret of Paulinism. This is not 
the universalism of Christianity seen with Hellenic 
breadth of vision in opposition to the clannishness of 
Judaism ; nor is it even the doctrine of righteousness 
by grace through faith in opposition to righteousness 
by law and works, though both of these great con- 
ceptions are characteristically Pauline : it is the 
spiritual truth, tested in experience, that salvation 
is received and perfected by the union of the soul 
with Jesus Christ — crucified with Christ, buried with 
Christ, risen with Christ, ascending with Christ. 
Thus Christ Himself is the very heart of St. Paul's 
religion. The early apostolic preaching also centres 
in Christ; but it treats Him more externally — in 
relation to His preordained suffering. His resur- 
rection triumph, and His future* advent in glory. 
St. James echoes the very words of Jesus; but he 
represents the spirit of the ethical Teacher, of the 
Preacher of the Sermon on the Mount. St. Peter 
comes nearer to deeper truths, and dwells much on 
the sufferings of Christ for the benefit of His people, 
urging Christians to walk in His footsteps. But it 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 161 

is St. Paul who brings out most clearly and forcibly 
the great fact of the close connection of the Christian 
with the risen, living Christ. This is one reason why 
the resurrection takes a regal place in his theology. 
It not only demonstrates that Jesus is the Christ; 
it also shows that our Lord now lives, and lives to 
be the life of His Church. Thus St. Paul sums up 
his conception of Christianity in his own experience 
when he says, "To me to live is Christ." 

A careful inquiry brings out the fact that St. Paul's 
teaching was progressive, and so leads to the conclusion 
that his own inspired thinking passed through stages 
of development. Many writers, none more skilfully 
than Professor Sabatier, have traced these stages in 
correspondence with the changes in the experience 
of the Apostle. They naturally fall into three 
periods : — 

First, there is the period of early missionary activity 
previous to the breaking out of the great controversy 
with the Judaisers, which is represented by St. Paul's 
speeches in Acts and the two Epistles to the 
Thessalonians. It is characterised by plain declara- 
tions of elementary truths and the absence of subtle 
argumentation. The Apostle announces to Jews that 
Jesus is their Messiah (Acts xiii. 23), and to heathen 
that God has appointed a Man to be the Judge of all 
(xvii. 31). To both he asserts that the resurrection 
of Jesus is the confirmation of these claims. To both 
he offers salvation in Christ. The return of the risen 
Saviour for judgment is strongly insisted on. When 
this will be no one can tell ; but the Apostle evidently 
shared the belief of his contemporaries in the near 

11 



162 THE THEOLOGY OF 

approach of the Parousia. Indeed, he expected it to 
be before his own death (1 Thess. iv. 15). We need 
not be surprised at this, for had not even our Lord 
confessed to His ignorance of the time of His own 
return ? If we may believe that Christ did come in 
judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem, the Apostle 
was not far out in his anticipation. Basing their 
exhortation on the approaching doom, these missionary 
speeches urge men to repent, and promise forgiveness 
to those who will accept Jesus Christ as their Lord 
and Saviour. 

The second period is that of the controversy with 
Judaising Christians. It is represented by the 
principal group of Epistles — those addressed to the 
Corinthians, the Galatians, and the Romans, and 
containing the most complete exposition of St. Taul's 
theology. The opposition of the method of the gospel 
to that of the law is now clearly drawn out ; God's 
supreme act of love in sending His Son to redeem the 
world fully expounded; the achievement of salvation 
through the death of Christ as a reconciling sacrifice 
strongly insisted on ; and, finally, the appropriation of 
the grace of God shown to take place by means of 
faith. These, however, are all truths difiicult of appre- 
hension, and in writing to the Corinthians St. Paul 
plainly states that they cannot be understood until 
they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. ii. 13-15). The 
Spirit of God is the fountain of interior illumination, 
from which also Christians derive all other gifts 
and graces that constitute the phenomenon of the 
new life. 

The third period embraces the Epistles of the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 163 

Captivity, written iu a calmer mood, after the great 
controversy is over — that to the Philippians, revealing 
the Apostle's deepest perception of his personal relation 
to his Lord ; that to the Ephesians, developing the 
idea of the mystical union of Christ and the Church; 
and that to the Colossians, advancing to an exalted 
view of the nature of Christ and His supremacy 
over the universe never before attained. Lastly, it 
may be noted that the Pastoml Epistles manifest 
development in Church government rather than ya 
theology. 

IL SIN 

St. Paul's conception of redemption in Jesus Christ 
presupposes the prevalence of the dreadful evil from 
which deliverance is needed. Therefore, in order to 
comprehend his exposition of the gospel, we must first 
see what he teaches concerning the nature and reign 
of sin. This order of procedure agrees with his own 
method in the Epistle to the Romans, which opens 
with a demonstration of the world's spiritual ruin, 
and that in turn is based on the order of his personal 
experience. The line of thought is bitten deeply into 
the argument by the force of the Apostle's earlier 
spiritual history. As a iPharisee he must have recog- 
nised that the aim of his distinctive position was to 
pursue a righteous life in separation from the evil of 
the world ; but his vivid reminiscences of his desperate 
struggle for purity (recorded in Rom. vii.) show 
that he had been keenly conscious of the masterful 
dominion of sin long before he had seen Christ's secret 



164 THE THEOLOGY OF 

of victory. In that early period he had striven to 
conquer his indwelling sin hy detailed acts of obedience 
to the Jewish law, but in vain, so that a miserable 
sense of failure had intensified- his perception of the 
overwhelming magnitude of the evil he was contending 
against. Thus, although he had always aimed at 
goodness and had never fallen into abandoned pro- 
fligacy, St. Paul, like St. Augustine and John Bunyan, 
was brought to look at Christ from the standpoint of 
sin. This autobiographical fact lends weight to the 
Apostle's gloomy representation of the condition of 
the Christless world. 

St. Paul insists on the universal dominion of sin 
over both Gentiles and Jews. His argument is two- 
fold—empirical and Scriptural. He appeals to his 
readers' knowledge of the world — such a world as 
was gathered in that sink of iniquity, the Rome of 
the Caesars, to which his letter was going ! and he 
confirms his appeal by adding quotations from denun- 
ciatory psalms. It might be objected that all men 
were not guilty of the heinous vices which the Apostle 
groups together in his awful catalogue, and also that 
the language of ancient Hebrew poets could not be 
fairly adduced as evidence against the character of 
society at large in subsequent ages. But it should be 
remembered that the moral atmosphere in which such 
hideous monstrosities of immorality, as the Koman 
satyrists plainly show were existing at this time, could 
lift up their heads unabashed, must have been very 
foul; and, further, it should be observed that the 
Apostle is not so much concerned with individual 
characters as with mankind as a whole. The language 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 165 

of the psalmists is a revelation of the awful depths to 
which human nature has sunk. Therefore, while it is 
not literally true of all men that " the poison of asps 
is under theii* lips," or that " their feet are swift to 
shed blood," the fact that such things can be said of 
any Ls a sign of the degraded condition into which 
mankind has fallen. Other pleas which might be 
brought forward in defence of the accused world are 
met in advance by the Apostle himself. Thus it 
might be maintained that the Gentiles have not the 
advantage of the Jewish law to guide them. St. Paul's 
answer is, first, that they are not ignorant of moral 
distinctions, for they have the double light of nature 
and of conscience ; and second, that they will only be 
judged according to their light, not by the standard 
of the Jewish law, and yet that this light will suffice 
to condemn them. Then, anticipating that the Jews 
would claim to be excused on account of their privi- 
leges, St. Paul replies that those very privileges will 
condemn them, because, although they are favoured 
with special religious advantages, they do the same 
bad things that they condemn in the Gentiles. Else- 
where and frequently St. Paul dwells emphatically on 
the lost state of Jews and Gentiles who alike are dead 
in trespasses and sins. 

Nevertheless, St. Paul does not maintain that there 
is nothing but evil in mankind before redemption. 
Conscience is not ineffectual among the heathen, for 
there are Gentiles who "do by nature the things of 
the law" (Rom. ii. 14). When describing his own 
condition before Christ was revealed to him, St. Paul 
writes of his hatred of sin, his wish to do good, hLs 



166 THE THEOLOGY OF 

delight in the law of God, his serving the law of God 
with the mind while with the flesh he served the law 
of sin (vii. 15-25). Thus he teaches the universal 
prevalence of sin, the depth and intensity of the guilt 
of n ankind, and the utter inability of the world to 
save itself — though he does not affirm a state of 
absolute corruption without any admixture of good. 

The universal prevalence of so fearful an evil 
naturally prompts the question of its origin, and 
leads us to ask how it came to spread its dominion 
over the whole world. St. Paul does not answer 
these questions directly ; since his purpose is wholly 
practical, he proceeds at once to point to the remedy 
without delaying to turn aside to speculative inquiries. 
Still, indirectly he furnishes us with two explanations. 
The first is historical. The universal sin of the race 
and its death penalty are traced back to the trans- 
gression and doom of the first man. This is not done in 
connection with the Apostle's treatment of sin, but 
only allusively, in order to supply an analogy to the 
work of Christ, who also, as one individual, effects 
vast changes in the whole world. Such an intro- 
duction of a subject, which is never considered by 
the Apostle on its own account, should make us 
pause before we permit his words to bear the 
enormous weight of all the Augustinian and Calvin- 
istic theology that has been built upon them. We 
must recollect that the idea of the relation of 
.Adam and his sin to the race did not originate with 
St. Paul, or in any school of Christian theology. 
Elsewhere, when establishing his own specific theses, 
the Apostle is vehemently argumentative. Here he 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 167 

does not think of proving his assertion ; neither does 
he proclaim it as a revelation, as pait of the 
" mystery " he preached : he simply appeals to it 
as something already known and admitted by his 
. readers, saying, " ^« through one man sin entered into 
the world, and death through sin," etc. (Rom. v. 12). 
This idea was a tenet of Jewish theology recognised 
by both the great schools, that of Alexandria and 
that of Jerusalem, as a legitimate inference from 
Gen. iii. It is found in the Alexandiian Book 
of Wisdom, where we read, "Through envy of the 
devil came death into the world " (ii. 24), and in 
Ecclesiasticus, which was written by a Jew of 
Jerusalem, in which we read, "Of the woman came 
the beginning of sin, and through her we all die" 
(xxv. 24). But St. Paul holds the doctrine; there- 
fore, although he received it in his rabbinical training, 
his retention of it after becoming a Christian apostle 
requires us to treat it as a part, though not a 
prominent part, of his theology. The exact idea is 
that death passed to the race as a fatal consequence 
of the sin of Adam — i.e., the primary thought is not 
hereditary sin, but hereditary fruits of sin. Thus 
we read, " By man came death. ... As in Adam 
all die'' (1 Cor. xv. 21, 22). At the same time, the 
sin of Adam is attributed to the race. This seems 
to be the meaning of the much- debated clause at the 
end of Rom. v. 12 : "Therefore, as through one man 
sin entered into the world, and death through sin ; and 
so death passeth unto all men,ybr that all sinned,'' etc. 
Although we may agree with the Revisers in retaining 
the rendering " for that '' for the Greek words l<j> <S, 



168 THE THEOLOGY OF 

a rendering for which the usage of St. Paul elsewhere 
suggests a justification (viz., in 2 Cor. v. 4; Phil. iii. 12), 
in preference to the Vulgate rendering " in whom " 
{in quo), so that the phrase means " since all sinned," 
" because all sinned," and gives the reason for death 
coming upon all; still, a consideration of the whole 
passage shows that even with this more probable 
translation the words cannot point to the separate, 
personal sinning of individual men. The Apostle 
cannot mean that all die because all sin in their 
responsible, private lives. To insert a clause to that 
effect would be to shatter his whole argument. He 
is drawing an analogy between the influence of 
Adam upon the race, and the corresponding influence 
of Christ. His point is that just as from the one, 
Adam, death comes to all, so from the One, Christ, 
life comes to all. But if all die on account of the 
separate sinning of each individual, the analogy 
vanishes. Then it is not the fact that all die for 
their own personal sins : this cannot be affirmed of 
infants. Further, the Aorist (" all sinned,^' yfiaprov) 
in better understood of a single act than of the con- 
tinuous stream of individual misdeeds which reached 
down to the time of the Apostle. For these reasons, 
even though we should accept the first rendering of 
the clause, we must still understand it to refer to the 
notion that when Adam sinned all his descendants 
sinned in him ; just as the author of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews maintains that when Abraham paid 
tithes to Melchizedek, Levi did so (Heb. vii. 9, 10). 
Elsewhere St. Paul says, "Through the one man's 
disobedience the many were xionstituted sinners " 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 169 

(Rom. V. 19). It is difficult for us to enter into 
the Apostle's thought ; but the apparent harshness 
of his teaching will be mitigated when we consider 
his treatment of sin itself. He writes of it, in the 
singular number, almost personifying it, as a sort 
of power which takes possession of men and reigns 
over them (ver. 21). In modern language we might 
say that it was a virus, a disease germ in the soul. 
This latent sin is dormant and innocuous until it is 
roused to activity by means of the provocation of law 
(vii. 8, 9). Now, so long as it is not personally 
adopted and encouraged, the Apostle does not charge 
it with guilt. The sin which has not emerged into con- 
sciousness under the influence of law is " not imputed " 
(v. 13). The statement of this significant truth comes 
immediately after the assertion that all sinned in 
Adam, and is evidently intended to balance that 
assertion. Instead of saying that the sin of Adam 
is imputed to his innocent descendants, St. Paul says 
the exact opposite : they are not innocent, but sin is 
not imputed to them — i.e., the race of Adam shares 
his sin, but not his guilt. Even where St. Paul uses 
the phrase " by nature children of wrath " (Eph. ii. 3) 
he does not predicate innate guilt, because the word 
" nature " (<j(>i;o-ts) is used for habit or custom, as well 
as for what is more original and essential. St. Paul's 
idea of human solidarity may be strange to our views 
of the subject ; but the modern equivalent lies in the 
doctrine of heredity, which teaches that vice is in- 
herited, and that children are not to be blamed for the 
moral taint they thus receive from their parents, but 
only for their conscious, voluntary acquiescence in it. 



170 THE THEOLOGY OF 

. These considerations bring us to the other explana- 
tion of sin which emerges in the writings of St. Paul 
— ^the psychological. The seat of sin is the flesh. 
Primarily, the flesh is the substance of the body. 
In Rom. viii. 13 the terms "flesh" and "body" are 
used synonymously. Blood relationship is " according 
to the flesh" (i. 3); a bodily trouble is a "thorn 
in the flesh " (2 Cor. xii. 7). Accordingly it has 
been maintained by Holsten, and less absolutely by 
Pfleiderer, that in connecting sin with the flesh St. 
Paul is adopting the Hellenic idea of the essential 
evil of matter, and teaching that sin is due to the 
influence of the body on the soul. There are grave 
objections to this view. (1) There is no evidence that 
St. Paul was to any considerable extent under the 
influence of Greek thought. His whole ti*aining was 
Jewish and Palestinian. But this doctrine is quite 
alien to Palestinian Judaism. (2) He does not teach 
that the flesh is evil. Sin dwells in the flesh — quite 
another thought. St. Paul writes about cleansing the 
flesh (2 Cor. vii. 1), and he says that the body of the 
Christian is a temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. vi. 19). 

(3) If the flesh were to be identified with sin, if matter 
were to be considered as inherently evil, sin would be 
contemporaneous with creation. This St; Paul does 
not hold ; on the contrary, he refers to sin entering 
the world after the creation of man (Rom. v. 12). 

(4) Sins not connected with the body are described 
as works of the flesh — e.g., enmities, strife, jealousies, 
wraths, factions, divisions, heresies, envyings (Gal. 
V. 19-23). The Corinthians are proved to be carnal 
because of their partisan spirit (1 Cor. iii. 3). Greek 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 171 

philosophy was not, for the most part, of any " sensa- 
tional " school, yet St. Paul calls that which prevailed 
at Corinth "fleshly wisdom" (2 Cor. i. 12). 

For these reasons it has been common to under- 
stand the "flesh" of St. Paul's writings as a word 
signifying man, the whole man, body and soul, 
especially when viewed in his frailty and imperfection 
and contrasted with God — a familiar Old Testament 
usage. This opinion is fully expounded by Professor 
Dickson in his Baird Lectures, on the basis of argu- 
ments suggested by Wendt. But although no doubt 
St. Paul does sometimes employ the Hebrew idiom 
{e.g., Rom. iii. 20), the appeal to it as an adequate basis 
for explaining the Apostle's doctrine of the relation of 
sin to the flesh is beset with difliculties. The notions 
of separation from God and antagonism to God are 
not found in the ancient usage of the word " flesh," 
according to which man is only contrasted with God 
on account of his feebleness, his frailty. The evil 
associations of the word " carnal " do not spring 
from the simple, pathetic Hebrew idea. Moreover, 
the metaphor does not readily lend itself to St. Paul's 
abstract thought. In the Old Testament the word 
" flesh " is used concretely for mankind. We find 
no precedent there for the notion of " the flesh " as 
an abstract idea of humanity. Still less can the 
adjective " carnal " come from the older usage. We 
speak of "somebody," and we count "heads." But 
we cannot therefore make the words "bodily" or 
" heady " equivalent to " human." Then, often 
" flesh " with St. Paul does not stand for the whole 
man. The Spirit is set over against the flesh. 



172 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Professor Dickson understands this of the Spirit of 
God, or the power and energy of God working in 
man ; so that the contest between Spirit and flesh is 
that between God and God-given influences on the 
one hand, and the whole man in his natural state on 
the other. No doubt St. Paul usually associates the 
thought of the Divine Spirit and His influence with 
the notion of the spiritual in human nature. Still, 
he also holds that man has a spiritual nature, and he 
refers to his own personal spirit. Thus, in 1 Cor. v. 3, 
St. Paul writes of being " absent in the body, but 
present in the spirit " ; and, as an equivalent expres- 
sion, he writes in Col. ii. 5, " Though I am absent in 
the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit," plainly 
meaning his own human spirit. Similarly he writes, 
" I myself with the mind serve the law of Grod, but 
with the flesh the law of sin " (Rom. vii. 25). Here 
again the mind (vovs) is contrasted with the flesh as 
a part of the Apostle's natural being, showing that 
the flesh does not include the whole man. 

We are driven back, then, to something approach- 
ing the primary meaning of the word " flesh." Yet, 
as we have seen, this cannot be accepted in strict 
literalness. It seems that we must find a solution of 
the riddle, as Beyschlag has indicated, by starting 
with the physical meaning of the word " flesh," but 
enlarging its content. Thus primarily sin has its 
seat in the body. St. Paul writes of the law of sin 
in his " members," and he cries, " Who shall deliver 
me out of the body of this death 1 " (ver. 24). 
Here sin is closely associated with the animal 
organism. Further, whenever it is called " carnal " it 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 173 

is still in some way connected with our lower nature. 
Thus St. Paul, when writing of indwelling sin, inserts 
the explanatory clause " in my flesh," saying, " I know 
that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good 
thing" (ver. 18). There would be no meaning in 
that insertion if the self were always identical with 
the flesh. He must mean that sin dwells in him 
during his unregenerate state — and it is this state 
he is writing of — by reason of the self being then 
practically identical with the lower nature. As the 
domain of the flesh enlarges, it comes to cover the 
sensuous as well as the sensual, and then the worldly, 
since the world touches us through the senses and 
incessantly appeals to our lower nature. Thus even 
philosophy can become carnal by failing to take 
notice of the higher spiritual Hfe and truth. 

St. Paul never accounts for these facts, never 
brings his two descriptions of sin together, never 
connects the evil in the flash with the fall of Adam. 
Each thought is treated by itself. Yet there is no 
inconsistency between them. Moreover, St. Paul's 
description of the genesis of personal sin neither goes 
back to Adam nor rests in the doctrine of the flesh. 
He evidently distinguishes the sin of conscious guilt 
from the great abstraction " Sin," which he elsewhere 
almost personifies, and treats as a potentate ruling 
over mankind. Conscious, personal sin, while it 
dwells in the flesh, is not a natural product of the 
lower life ; it consists in positive enmity to God. 
Even in its sensual forms it does not spring only 
from bodily lusts. Here St. Paul is more profound 
than St. James, penetrating beneath the carnal 



174 THE THEOLOGY OF 

d^res to the spiritual apostasy which gives the 
reins to them (L 18-25). In a snbtle analysis he 
traoeB the «n of men hack to their wilfal n^lect of 
God in nature and oonscienoe, and the consequent 
degradation of religion. Through abandoning the 
uplifting and preserving influences of spiritual religion 
they not only fall into idolatry, they also sink down 
to immorality. This is a vital consideration ; for the 
remedy must be as deep as the disease. Inasmuch as 
sin is more than moral corruption, its cure must be 
more than ethical reformation. Since sin consists 
essentially in apostasy from Crod, redemption must 
be nothing less than a reconciliation issuing in a 
restoration of communion with GU)d. 

Finally, it is to be observed that, while St. Paul 
frequently alludes to Satan, he never does so in 
connection with the genesis of sin. The devil is a 
malignant author of physical evil, disease, and death ; 
but he is overruled by Providence, and utilised as 
an instrument for just and wholesome chastisement 
{e,g,, 1 Cor. v. 5 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7). He is also a domi- 
nant spiritual power, " the god of this age," who has 
blinded tlie minds of the unbelieving (2 Cor. iv. 4), 
** the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that 
now worketh in the sons of disobedience " (Eph. ii. 2) ; 
but Adam and the flesh are more closely associated 
with sin than is Satan, because the latter is regarded 
as a somewhat remote, foreign potentate, while the 
sources of sin lie nearer home. The guilt of sin 
cannot be thrown back from man to the devil, because 
the action of the latter is conditioned by the char- 
noters and wills of his subjects. Thus he blinds the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 175 

minds of unbelievers^ and works in the sons of dis- 
obedience. The lack of faith and obedience on the 
part of men precedes the exercise of the spiritual 
power of Satan, and supplies the point of attach- 
ment without which he could not lay hold of his 
victims. 

III. JESUS CHRIST 

Jesus Christ, the personal, living Redeemer and 
Lord, was the centre of St. PauFs religious life 
and thought, and the inspiring subject of all his 
preaching. In the first place he taught that Jesus 
was the Christ, that the hopes of the fathers and 
promises of the prophets came to a focus and found 
their fulfilment in the Man of Nazareth, who had 
been crucified in shame, but who had been raised 
by God in glory. To the world at large, where 
Jewish anticipations were unknown, St. Paul had 
to explain the ideas as well as the realisation of 
them. So he preached, as his accusers said, "another 
King, one Jesus " (Acts xvii. 7). For himself Jesus 
Christ was emphatically " the Lord," before whom 
he stood as a humble " bondservant " (SovXos). The 
glow of passionate love, the awe of reverence, the 
confession of total surrender and absolute obedience 
which mark the Apostle's regard for his Lord testify 
to the highest appreciation even apart from any 
theory of the nature of their object. He must be 
supremely good and great who could command such 
adoring affection. But we may go further. Although 
the Apostle never attempts to give us an exact 



176 THE THEOLOGY OF 

account of his ideas of Christ in one complete picture, 
we may gather from his many scattered statements 
the several traits of a fairly definite portrait. 

There can be no doubt that St. Paul believed in 
the true humanity of our Lord. He despised know- 
ledge of Christ after the flesh compared with the 
spiritual knowledge revealed to those who have 
inward experience of the Spirit of Christ ; but this 
very contempt for the barely external implies that 
Jesus did live as a man in the common earthly life. 
He " was born of the seed of David according to the 
flesh " (Rom. i. 3). He was " bom of a woman " 
(Gal. iv. 4). St. Paul makes no reference to the 
miraculous form of the birth of Christ. He may not 
have heard of it. But he says nothing to conflict 
with it. There is no reason to think that his allusion 
to the seed of David points to Joseph, whose genea- 
logies in the line of David are given in two Gospels, 
for he may have been aware that Mary was of the 
same line. His silence on this subject cannot be used 
as an argument as to the historical facts of the case 
either way, because we have no ground for saying 
that he must have known what had happened, or 
that if he had known it he was under any necessity 
to write about it. The neglect of this point, however, 
suggests that St. Paul rested his belief in the Divinity 
of Christ on considerations that were quite inde- 
pendent of the physical mode of His birth. 

St. Paul teaches the personal sinlessness of Christ. 
He writes of " God sending His Own Son in the likeness 
of sinful flesh " (Rom. viii. 3); a phrase which, taken by 
itself, might point to phantasmal Docetism — the idea 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 177 

that Christ had not a real body of flesh, had only 
the appearance of such a body : but this interpreta- 
tion is quite excluded by those other passages just 
quoted which make mention of the actual corporeal 
nature of our Lord. It is evident that the careful 
language of the Apostle is designed to exclude the 
thought of any sin attaching to the human nature 
of Christ. He had flesh, as we learn elsewhere, 
but not sinful flesh. The moral birth-taint of 
hereditary corruption which the Apostle calls "sin," 
although it does not include guilt until the will has 
consented to it, was not found in Christ. He was born 
as an unf alien man. Neither did He commit sin 
in His conscious, voluntary actions, for He " knew 
no bin " (2 Cor. v. 21). It is commonly said that 
St. Paul based this doctrine on his exalted conception 
of the glorious Christ whom he knew after the 
resurrection by spiritual experience. This may well 
be the case. Such a Christ as St. Paul knew could 
not have been a sinner on earth. Yet why should 
we exclude any reference to the earthly history ? 
St. Paul had held conversations with the companions 
of oiur Lord ; and although he did not derive the great 
principles of his gospel from these men, he must have 
been eager to learn from them details of the life of 
Jesus. He always quoted traditional sayings of Christ 
with the greatest reverence, and appealed to them as 
a final authority distinctly higher than that of his 
own inspired teaching (e.^., 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12). 
Therefore we may assume that he knew how they 
who had watched their Lord most closely were con- 
vinced of His sinlessness. 

12 



178 THE THEOLOGY OF 

A doctrine peculiar to St. Paul among New 
Testament writers is that of the Second Adam. 
The Apostle would have found seed thoughts in Jewish 
speculations concerning the Messiah, but he alone has 
worked out the conception in its direct application 
to Jesus Christ, and shown that our Lord is the 
Founder of a new order of humanity — the firstborn 
among many brethren (Rom. viii. 29). Weighty 
inferences may be drawn from this idea. Thus 
Christ is seen to be identified with mankind in its per- 
fection and glory. Then the aim of His work must 
have been to effect more than a restoration of what 
Adam had ruined ; it was also to carry on the progress 
of man beyond redemption up to perfection ; from 
which it has been argued that according to St. Paul's 
teaching Christ would have come, the incarnation 
would have taken place, even if there had been no 
sin and fall of man. Gt)d's idea of man is only 
fully realised in Christ as in the firstfruits, and 
through Christ in His followers. Lastly, Christ 
must be of a most exalted nature in order to be 
the Founder and Leader of the new humanity. 
Although absolute Divinity may not be involved 
in the notion of the Second Adam, we are prepared 
by that notion for the perception of the higher 
truth. Here is no approach to the Arian doctrine 
of an intermediate creature, neither truly God nor 
truly man. It is rather a preparation for the 
thought of the closer union of God and man 
through the lifting of man nearer to God. 

St. Paul certainly believed in the Divinity of Jesus 
Christ, and taught it to his converts. He felt no 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 179 

compunction in applying to our Lord phrases which 
the Old Testament plainly used for Jehovah {e.g., 
Rom. X. 12-14). This is in agreement with the 
custom of other Apostles. Although the practice 
does not include a direct affirmation of Divinity, it is 
inconceivable that any amount of negligence could 
have permitted it to creep in if Jesus had been held 
to be only a man. But the Apostle is much more 
expHcit. He refers to our Lord as the Son of God 
{e.g.. Gal. i. 16), and as God's own Son (rov kavrov vlovy 
Rom. viii. 3 ; rov ISiov vlov, ver. 32). These exact 
expressions exclude the notion that the title is used 
only in the theocratic sense in which, perhaps, the 
Jews attributed it to the Messiah, without any 
'assertion of personal Divinity. They plainly point 
to a real Sonship belonging to our Lord essentially 
and by nature. In Rom. i. 4 St. Paul says that 
He was "declared (or determined, bpurOivros) to 
be the Son of God with power, according to the 
Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead." 
From this passage some have inferred that St. Paul 
taught that our Lord did not attain to Divine Sonship 
till after the resurrection. But we must interpret 
the words in harmony with what the Apostle writes 
elsewhere. Thus he tells us that God sent His Son 
(Rom. viii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4), an expression which, apart 
from its probable reference to pre-existence, certainly 
implies that when Jesus came into the world He was 
God's Son, and therefore that He could not have waited 
until the end of His earthly life for the realisation of 
His Sonship. The resurrection simply defined the Son- 
ship, made it clear, and made God's recognition of it 



180 THE THEOLOGY OF 

clear too. In this passage the " Spirit of holiness *' 
corresponds to the " flesh " of the previous verse. To- . 
gether they make up the complete being of Christ. 
Thus the " Spirit of holiness '' is the Divine in Christ, 
which is one side of His nature as Son of God, over 
against the flesh of the seed of David, the other side 
of His nature as man. There is just one passage in 
which, if the text is correct — and there are no manu- 
script discrepancies — and if we may follow the most 
natural rendering, St. Paul departs from his usual 
practice in calling Christ the Son of God, and names 
Him directly "God," with the most exalted attributes 
— viz., Rom. ix. 5 : " of whom (i.e., the Jews) is Christ 
as concerning the flesh, who is over all God blessed 
for ever. Amen." The fact that this expression is 
without parallel in the writings of St. Paul has led 
some to translate the words in a less obvious and 
natural way, by making the sentence end at " flesh," 
and taking the last words as a separate doxology — 
" He who is God over all be blessed for ever." But 
the insertion of a doxology in the middle of an 
argument would be strangely abrupt. Elsewhere the 
Apostle ascribes very exalted attributes to our Lord. 
He is the Mediator of creation — " through whom are 
all things " (1 Cor. viii. 6) ; of old He existed in the 
essential form of God {cv fiop<^ ®€o9, Phil. ii. 6); 
He is the " image of God " (2 Cor. iv. 4), so that we 
know God by knowing Christ. 

The pre-existence of Christ is distinctly asserted 
in the writings of St. Paul. We cannot certainly 
infer it from the assertion that God sent His Son. 
But other phrases clearly point to this idea. Thus in 



TEE NEW TESTAMENT 181 

2 Cor. viii. 9 we read, " Though He was rich, yet for 
your sakes He became poor/' The example of Christ 
is here cited as a stimulus to the Corinthians. But 
how could it be so applied if the Apostle could go 
back no further than the earthly life of our Lord 
in the carpenter's home at Nazareth ? Still more 
distinct is the famous passage Phil. ii. 5-11, on which 
the h&aotic theories are chiefly based. The Apostle 
opens by describing our Lord as first "being in the 
form of God/* and then, instead of grasping at 
equality with His Father, taking the very opposite 
course. He " emptied Himself, taking the form of 
a servant, being made in the Hkeness of men," etc. 
Strangely enough, some have assigned all this 
humiliation to the lowly conduct of our Lord on 
earth. But the reference to the Divine glory and 
the self-emptying precedes any mention of the earthly 
life. He emptied Himself first ; then, as a result 
of this action, He appeared on earth. Moreover, 
His humiliation began in His being made in the 
likeness of men. What does this mean but the very 
inception of the incarnation? Again, it must be 
clear that the previous state was one of great fulness 
and glory. Christ did more than lay aside His glory ; 
He gave up powers and attributes, and came down 
to the limitations of human consciousness. He not 
only threw off robes of majesty. He emptied Himself. 
Such words must denote what is personal and in- 
ternal. For His wonderful act of grace culminating 
Hbi submission to death Christ has given to Him the 
highest name of honour. Since this experience of 
our Lord's is not a mere resumption of a former 



182 THE THEOLOGY OF 

state, but a direct reward from God, it would 
seem to point to a higher exaltation than that 
of the first condition. But we must not press the 
inference. St. Paul contemplates the final exaltation 
from the standpoint of the earthly life, not from that 
of the pre -existence. Viewed thence it appears as 
a glorious recompense. 

At the same time, this ascription of greatness 
to our Lord goes along with a certain idea of subordi- 
nation. It is not the Arian subordination of the 
creature who has a beginning in time. Christ is the 
Son, not a creature ; and there is no reference to any 
beginning of His pre-existence — a strange idea which 
never seems to have been thought of by the Apostle. 
Certainly the drift of his teaching is against it. Still, 
Christ is in a degree subject to His Father. God 
sent His Son, and the Sender must be superior to 
the Sent. Christ did not treat equality with God as 
a thing He would grasp at (Phil. ii. 6). He did not 
rise from the dead in His own strength. Describing 
the resurrection, St. Paul uses the passive voice, 
"He hath been raised" (1 Cor. xv. 12), or he says 
God "raised" Him up (^yctpc, ver. 15). Similarly, 
it is God who exalts Him. All things come only 
through (8ta) Christ as the Mediator ; but they come 
originally out of {Ik) God as the First Cause. In the 
great future triumph, " when all things have been 
subjected unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself 
be subjected to Him that did subject all things unto 
Him, that God may be all in all " (1 Cor. xv. 28). 
It is not possible to limit these words to the human 
pature of Christ, because tfee title "the Son," not 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 183 

" Jesus," is used, and this always points to the Divine 
in Christ. Moreover, St. Paul never distinguishes be- 
tween the human and the Divine in our Lord in such 
a way that anything like personality could be ascribed 
to the former exclusively. He thinks of one person 
throughout as the Son of God, who was " formed in 
fashion as a man," and afterwards exalted to the 
highest glory. 

We must turn to the Epistle to the Colossians for 
the completion of St. PauFs Christology. In this late 
work we find that the Apostle has advanced to more 
exalted ideas of the nature and functions of Christ 
than he had set forth in any previous epistle. All the 
writings of the Captivity enrich our conceptions of 
the greatness of our Lord. As we have seen already, 
the Epistle to the Philippians most distinctly accen- 
tuates the glory of the pre-existence and the grace 
of the incarnation, followed by the resultant and final 
exaltation. The Epistle to the Ephesians sets before 
us a picture of Christ wedded to His Church, and in 
another image, Christ the Head of the body. But in 
the Epistle to the Colossians we see the relation of our 
Lord to the whole universe. He is " the image of 
the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation' 
(Col. i. 15). The latter phrase does not afiirm that 
He is a part of creation. The universe is created ; 
Christ is begotten. The title " firstborn " does not 
imply that creation was also begotten, for it is used 
as a name of honour for the heir. It suggests priority 
of origin and primacy of rank. This is clear, because 
in the next clause we read, " For in Him were all 
things created " (ver. 16), showing that He stands 



184 THE THEOLOGY OF 

above creation, which only comes into being through 
His mediation. In opposition to an incipient Jewish 
Gnosticism, which distributed the operations of God 
through a whole hierarchy of angels, St. Paul affirms 
that these beings, thrones, dominions, principalities 
— presuming they exist — were all created through 
Him and unto Him. Here He is more than the 
Mediator of creation, as He appears to be in an 
earlier expression (1 Cor. viii. 6). He is its end ; all 
things lead up to Him ; all were created unto Him. 
This is a new thought. It marks a distinct advance. 
It would be a mistake, an absurd anachronism, to 
attempt to arrange these ideas as parts of a systematic 
scheme of the Trinity. St. Paul never speculates on 
the essential inner life of God apart from His relation 
to the universe. He follows our Lord's example in 
frequently describing God as the Father. He writes 
of " God " (the Father) absolutely. Jesus Christ is 
the Son of God. St. Paul does not hesitate to call 
the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Christ, without making 
any attempt to guard the barriers of separate person- 
ality (e.g., Rom. viii. 9). Nevertheless, the Spirit is not 
impersonal, for the Apostle mentions His action and 
even His will (1 Cor, xii. 11). His full Divinity is 
clearly taught, for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is 
treated as identical with the indwelling of God (iii. 16 ; 
2 Cor. vi. 16). But though the Apostle attempts no 
metaphysical synthesis of the doctrine of the Trinity, he 
certainly affirms the fundamental Trinitarian ideas. 
Thus, for example, in the benediction he directly in- 
dicates both the Divinity and the threefold existence 
of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (xiii, 14). 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 185 



IV. REDEMPTION 

The great joy and confidence of St. Paul in the 
proclamation of his gospel spring out of the assurance 
that the dehverance of men from the ruin of sin, as 
well as the further advance of the sons of God on to 
perfection, are effected by God Himself, who of His 
own will accomplishes these results. God sent His 
son. Salvation is a gift (Sw/oca), by means of which 
sinners are justified gratuitously (8o>/o€av), a favour 
(xdpia-fm) originating in the pure kindness (xapLs) of 
God. This doctrine of free grace lies at the root of 
the Apostle's teaching. On the one hand, it reproves 
the f oUy of attempts at self -salvation by showing that 
they are as needless as they are hopeless-^that we can- 
not save ourselves, and that we are not required to 
produce, purchase, or deserve our own salvation. On 
the other hand, it manifests the merciful disposition of 
God, who has not to be propitiated — in the heathen 
sense of the word, ^.e., induced to become gracious — 
because from the first He is gracious, desiring our 
salvation, and making provision for it at the greatest 
cost to Himself, even the sacrifice of His own Son. 
St. Paul traces this wonderful Divine movement back 
to two motives. The first is the love of God. Thus 
he says, " God commendeth His own hve toward us, in 
that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us " 
(Rom. V. 8) ; and " in love having foreordained us 
unto adoption as sons " (Eph. i. 4, 5). Christians are 
" vessels of mercy " (Rom. ix. 23). The second motive 
is the righteousness of God. God so justifies as to 



186 THE THEOLOGY OF 

manifest His own righteousness (iii. 25, 26). The 
term " righteousness " {hiKOLLOfnmj) is never used by St. 
Paul for punitive justice, for which he has another 
word (StKatoK/oMTta, ii. 5). He always employs the 
term in an ethical sense. Nor do we ever find the 
idea it contains set in opposition to love ; but, as in 
the Old Testament {e.g., Psalm Ixxi. 17; xcviii. 2; 
ciii. 17), it is directly associated with mercy. Right- 
eousness seeks just what love seeks — viz., the destruc- 
tion of sin. 

St. Paul is equally decided in connecting the work 
of redemption with Jesus Christ, not only as the 
agent and instrument for effecting the gracious Divine 
purpose, but also as Himself willingly carrying out 
the work because of His own love for mankind. " God 
was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself" 
(2 Cor, V. 19). To this end not only do we read 
that " God sent forth His Son " (Gal. iv. 4), but also 
that our Lord Jesus Christ " gave Himself " (i. 4) ; 
so that the Apostle can write of Him with adoring 
gratitude as " the Son of God, who loved me, and 
gave Himself up for me" (ii. 20). The Person of 
Christ is the object of love and faith, because our 
salvation is attributed to our Lord Himself, and not 
merely to some experience under which He was 
passive. His whole life, too, is associated with this 
great work — His advent. His incarnation. His 
ministry. His death. His resurrection. His ascension 
(Rom. viii. 34). Yet there is this difference between 
St. Peter's references to the life of Christ and those of 
St. Paul, that while the former dwells on the course 
of the earthly ministry of One who " went about 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 187 

doing good," on the deeds and the sufferings which 
he himself had witnessed, the latter directs our 
attention to the great initial acts of coming into the 
world, undertaking the work of salvation, etc., and 
the final consummation in death and resurrection. 
The essential worth of Christ's work seems to be traced 
by St. Paul to obedience. Thus he says, " As through 
one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, 
even so through the obedience of One shall the many 
be made righteous " (v. 19). Here St. Paul's doctrine 
of solidarity emerges, showing that the incarnation by 
which Christ is related to us as the Second Adam 
conveys to us grace, just as the first Adam's relation- 
ship conveyed sin. The resurrection also has a vital 
connection with the work of Christ. He was raised 
up for our justification (iv. 25). This cannot merely 
mean the assurance of the Messiahship of Christ. 
The resurrection is the sign of God's acceptance of 
Christ ; and it is more, it is the evidence that Christ 
lives. He lives to justify us as a present, active 
Saviour. 

While, however, the very being of Christ and His 
whole life-mission, especially His incarnation and 
His resurrection, are involved in the vast task of 
redeeming the world, St. Paul assigns a place of 
honour to our Lord's death. He not only preaches 
a crucified Christ, but his message is emphatically 
" the word of the Cross " (1 Cor. i. 18). He teaches 
that Jesus Christ died to save the world. This is 
distinctly Pauline doctrine. It is not found in the 
speeches in the Acts; it is not found in St. Peter 
until after that Apostle has come under the influence 



188 THE THEOLOGY OF 

of St. Paul.* It is prominent in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews and in St. John*s writings ; but these are all 
late works. Yet St. Paul does not claim to have 
discovered it, or to have bad it as a special revelation, 
as he claims his peculiar gospel of free justification 
apart from the law to have come to him directly 
from God ; for he places this truth side by side with 
the detailed evidence for the resurrection as part 
of the deposit which he has received, saying, " For 
I delivered unto you first of all that which also I 
received, how that Christ died for our sins accord- 
ing to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. xv. 3). Possibly his 
reference is to a tradition of our Lord's words about 
giving His life as a ransom for many (Mark x. 45), 
or to the statement at the institution of the Lord's 
Supper, which St. Paul himself quotes (1 Cor. xi. 25). 
The mention of the Scriptures points to Isa. liii., a 
favourite passage with the Apostles, meditation on 
which might have led to the thought that our Lord's 
death was designed by God to have an atoning 
efficacy. Yet it must have been the individual 
inspiration of St. Paul by the Spirit of God which 
enabled the Apostle to work out from these data 
a great doctrine of the Cross, which for clearness 
and fulness is really new, and constitutes a forward 
step in the development of revelation. 

When we inquire how the death of Christ can 
materially contribute to the effecting of our salvation, 
we find many luminous hints in the writings of St. 
Paul, although his ideas on the subject are never 

* In 1 Peter, which shows acquaintance with some of St. 
Paul's writings. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT i 189 

gathered into one complete theory. He tells us that 
Christ died for us and for our sins. It has been 
pointed out that, while he uses the terms "con- 
cerning" (TTcpt) and *'on behalf of" (virip), he 
never employs the phrase " instead of " (drrt) in this 
connection. He says that Christ died on our behalf 
and because of our sins; he does not in so many 
words say that Christ died in our stead. And yet in 
a certain sense must not this be true of the whole 
broad fact ] We were under the death penalty ; but 
now we need not perish : the ground of our escape 
is that Christ died. What is this but saying that 
Christ died instead of our dying? St. Paul, however, 
does not go the step further of saying that Christ 
suffered the very death we would have endured, or that 
He was punished instead of us. He did not die the very 
death we should have died, for that is eternal death, 
which Chris1> did not suffer ; and we do not escape the 
very death He died, for He died a bodily death, and 
that we must die (physically, though not in its moral 
significance). Still, He died on the Cross that we 
might not die eternally. In this sense His dying is 
instead of our dying. 

There are two strong expressions which bring out ^ 
most forcibly St. Paul's idea of our Lord's redeeming 
sufferings. He tells us that Christ was made to 
be "sin (aixafyrlav) on our behalf" (2 Cor. v. 21), 
and "a curse for us" (Gal. iii. 13). The first 
of these terms cannot mean "a sin offering,'* be- 
cause the phrase for that is different (viz., Trepl 
dfiapTias),* because in the preceding clause the word 
* E,ff., Rom. 7iii 3 ; conl Lev. xvi. 5 and Heb. x. 8. 



190 THE THEOLOGY OF 

" sin " occurs in the ordinary sense (" Him who knew 
no sin "), and because the following clause — to which 
the one under consideration is in direct antithesis — 
refers to righteousness as the opposite of the sin here 
mentioned. Neither can we follow Holsten in sup- 
posing St. Paul to mean that Christ was really 
made a sinner when He became a man, and so came 
in for a share of Adam's sin since that was latent 
in the race, though without being guilty of personal 
sin ; for this is contrary to what we have seen to 
be St. Paul's express teaching. The daring phrase 
probably means that Christ was treated as a sinner, 
so that He came into the shame and horror and 
suffering of sin. The second expression is more 
clearly elucidated by the context. The whole sen- 
tence runs : " Christ redeemed us from the curse 
of the law, having become a curse for us; for it 
is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a 
tree." Here it is to be noticed that St. Paul does 
not say that Christ endured the curse of the law, for 
he does not repeat the definite article, as he must 
have done if this had been his meaning. He does 
not write that Christ became " the curse," but that 
He became " a curse." Moreover, he tells us what 
this curse was. It consisted in crucifixion. To be 
crucified was to be cursed : " for it is written, Cursed 
is every one that hangeth on a tree." Jesus was not 
crucified because He was cursed ; He was cursed be- 
cause He was crucified. That is what St. Paul distinctly 
afiirms. We have no justification for importing the 
notion of some mysterious additional curse pronounced 
by God over the head of the Sufferer. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 191 

Three most significant words are employed by St. 
Paul in describing the atoning efficacy of the life, and 
especially the death, of Jesus Christ. These are — 
" reconciliation " (KaToAAayiJ, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19) ; 
" propitiation " (lAaorryptov, Rom. iii. 25) ; and 
" redemption " (d7roA.vT/oo)orts, ver. 24). There need 
be little difficulty with the first of these. It implies 
that sin consists in a quarrel between man and 
God, and that Christ puts an end to that quarrel, 
and brings us back into friendly relations with our 
Father. It is to be remarked that St. Paul never 
writes of any reconciling of God to man ; he only 
mentions the reconciling of the world to God. No 
doubt the Greek word (dTroAvT/oaxns) has a double 
bearing, and signifies a mutual relationship ; so that 
even when it is used for one person being reconciled 
to another, it may imply a new favourable attitude 
in the second party ; and the " not imputing " of sins 
seems to lean in this direction. But, inasmuch as 
the reconciliation begins with God's movement, the 
term cannot be stretched to include a reconciling of 
God to man. If a third party effected the reconcilia- 
tion the idea might be implied, but not when God 
Himself brings it about. 

The second word (IXaoTTy/otov) is translated "pro- 
pitiation " in the English Versions. It is used 
in the LXX. and in Heb. ix. 5 for the " mercy- 
seat" — i.e., the cover of the ark. But this cannot 
be its meaning in the Epistle to the Romans, be- 
cause here it has no article, and we should expect 
to read " the mercy-seat." Besides, we have no reason 
to suppose that Italian readers would understand an 



192 THE THEOLOGY OF 

obscure allusion to the tabernacle furniture without 
receiving any hint that this was being used as an 
image of Christ. Lastly, we cannot speak of " the 
blood" of the mercy-seat. Accordingly some taka 
the word to mean an " expiatory offering." But it 
never bears that sense elsewhere. Therefore we must 
interpret it as an adjective signifying " propitiatory," 
Inasmuch as it is apparently in the neuter gender, it 
would seem to stand for "a means of propitiation." 
Still, there remains some difficulty, seeing that it is 
God who sets forth Christ as this means of propitia- 
tion. How can God be said to propitiate Himself ? 
An attempt at the removal of the difficulty has been 
made by treating the two Divine attributes, Mercy 
and Justice, as virtually separate persons needing to 
be reconciled. Then Mercy prepares a propitiation 
for Justice. But this fanciful drama is not found 
in St, PauFs teaching. Probably we must understand 
the propitiation to be that by means of which God 
acts graciously towards us — as, in fact, " a means of 
grace," but with this associated idea, that while Grod 
always willed to be gracious, it was not possible for His 
intention to be exercised apart from what Christ was 
and did. Our Lord removes the obstacle which prevents 
the grace of God from flowing into the heart of man. 
To us this looks like propitiating God, because it has 
the effect of propitiation. Sacrificial allusions point 
in the same direction. St. Paul's mention of the 
blood of Christ suggests that His death was a sacrifice, 
for in the rites of the altar the blood was of primary 
importance, because it signified the life of the victim 
surrendered to God for the benefit of those people on 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 193 

whom it was sprinkled. So does the phrase "for 
sin " (ttc/oi afiofyrCasy Rom. viii. 3), which was a 
technical term for the sin offering ; the Paschal 
Lamb to which Christ is compared (1 Cor. v. 7) is 
also sacrificial These allusions naturally suggest the 
idea of clearing guHt, and so removing the great 
hindrance to our enjoyment of God's favour. 

The third word is " redemption." This may be a 
reminiscence of the often-quoted saying of our Lord 
comparing His death to a ransom. Like Christ, 
St. Paul refrains from giving us a hint as to the 
existence of any person— either God (Anselm) or the 
devil (Origen) — to whom the price is paid. He 
dwells only on the great cost — Ahe life-blood of 
Christ (Eph. i. 7), and on the end attained — the 
liberation of souls. The image is of captives set 
free. The freedom is both from the curse of the 
law (Gal. iii. 13), and from the dominion of sin 
(Rom. vi. 18). At the same time, the Christian is 
by no means free from obligations. Since he was 
bought by God, he belongs to God (1 Cor. vi. 19). 
He has the liberty of sonship, which is associated 
with intelligent, affectionate obedience. 

Thus we are brought to the specific benefits con- 
ferred by the work of Christ. In the first place, we 
have the forgiveness of sins (Col. i. 14). " The wages 
of sin is death." From the endurance of this awful 
result of past conduct a way of escape has been made 
by our Lord (Rom. vi. 23). " There is therefore now 
no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus " 
(viii. 1). But the work of Christ is not con- 
fined to obviating the noxious consequencea of sin. 

13 



194 THE THEOI^OGY OF 

He destroys sin itself. Thus St. Paul writes, " God 
sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, 
and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the 
flesh " (ver. 3). Here it is not the condemnation of 
the offender — who, in point of fact, is acquitted — but 
the condemnation of sin that the Apostle attributes 
to God in Christ. We must recollect St. Paul's 
terrible picture of Sin as a potentate reigning over 
the world. Now we see God, by means of the mission 
and sacrifice of Christ, dethroning the monstrous 
usurper, and condemning it in its peculiar territory, 
'Hhe flesh/' This signification of the phrase is 
confirmed by the context. In the previous verse we 
read, " The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus 
made me free from the law of sin and of death " {vec, 2). 
" The law of sin and death " must be the reigning 
power of evil prevalent in the world. Sinners live 
under the yoke of that bad law. Their liberation by 
Christ consists in the fact that they are now set free 
from its tyranny. Freedom is brought about by the 
defeat of the monarch Sin, the law and government 
of which disappear when the power that puts them 
forth is shattered. Then redemption is also described 
as a deliverance from the evil world. Jesus Christ 
gave Himself for our sins that He might deliver us 
out of this present evil world (or age, atoliv, Gal. i. 4). 
Lastly, the work of Christ is positive. He not only 
delivers. He gives life. He renews — makes us new 
creatures (1 Cor. v. 17). 

These results of the redeeming work of Christ- 
deliverance from the doom of sin in forgiveness, and 
liberation from its power in the quickening of a 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 195 

new life — are intimately connected in the writings of 
St. Paul, who attributes both directly to Christ. He 
is not satisfied to let the main work of Christ issue 
in the first result, and to treat the conquest of sin 
itself as a mere consequence of human gratitude 
reflecting on the great blessing of forgiveness. Any 
such notion is contrary to his teaching in two respects. 
First, it makes the overthrow of the power of sin 
a work of man. Secondly, it puts this in a sub- 
sidiary position, and at a second stage in the process 
of salvation. With St. Paul the internal victory 
won over sin is as really and fully Christ's work as 
the escape from its doom. With St. Paul, too, this 
is a primary work of Christ. Moreover, the two 
results are contemporaneous, and they intercommuni- 
cate, so that the one affects the other. " There is no 
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus " and 
" He that is in Christ Jesus is a new creature " are 
mutually conditioning truths. The forgiveness makes 
the renewal possible by restoring intercourse with God 
in the great reconciliation, so that the Divine power 
of creation is at once received through Christ; 
and the concomitant renewal makes the forgiveness 
morally wholesome by saving it from any taint 
of laxity. This is clear in Rom. viii., where, after 
opening with a triumphant exclamation of confidence 
in the freedom of the Christian from condemnation, 
St. Paul immediately and most significantly adds 
a description of the new life of moral liberty, con* 
necting the second thought with the first by means 
of the conjunction ^^for " (yap) : " There is therefore 
now no condemnation, etc. . . . for the law of the 



196 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Spirit of life in Christ J esus made me free from 
the law of sin and death/' etc. 



V. THE CHRISTIAN LIFB 

No doctrine is more familiarly associated with the 
name of St, Paul than that of justification by faith. 
It may be said with truth that this is just the 
complete statement and theoretical explanation of an 
idea which was taught practically and implicitly by 
all the Apostles and Evangelists of New Testament 
times ; for they all offered forgiveness of sins on con- 
dition of adhesion to Jesus as Christ. Still, many of 
them shrank from the consequences which St. Paul 
unflinchingly deduced. He was the first to give 
intellectual form to the thought, and the first to dis- 
entangle it from the remnants of Jewish conceptions 
which were essentially inconsistent with it. 

History shows that theological definitions are gener- 
ally forged in the white heat of controversy ; and we 
have to thank the exigencies of polemics for the 
luminous expositions of Pauline theology which are 
preserved in the New Testament. The Apostle was 
compelled to formulate his beliefs with exceptional 
distinctness in order to defend his own personal 
position and the claims of his specific teaching. But 
there was no dispute between St. Paul and his 
opponents — as at a later date there was between 
Luther and the Roman Catholics — concerning the 
nature of justification. Both parties were agreed on 
this point. The only question was as to the means 
by which the result desired and aimed at by all was 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 197 

to be brought about. It is now admitted that the 
idea of justification which passed over from Judaism 
to Christianity is not that of an ethical change — the 
making a bad person good. Indisputably it signifies 
clearing from a charge of guilt, or even a more 
general vindication of rightness where no charge has 
been made — not making right, but declaring a person 
to be right, and then, by a natural transition, treating 
him as right. The word "justify" (11?, St/cauxo) 
is used in this sense both in the Old Testament and 
in the New. Thus we read, " Enter not into judg- 
ment with Thy servant, for in Thy sight shall no man 
living be justified " (Psalm cxliii. 2). Our Lord says 
of the publican, in contrast with the Pharisee, " This 
man went down to his house justified rather than the 
other " (Luke xviii. 14). Here we come to the special 
application of the word which is most frequent in St. 
Paul. The simplest form of justification is the clear- 
ing of the character of an innocent person. In the Old 
Testament the magistrate who justifies the wicked 
man is condemned (Pro v. xvii. 15). But the Pauline 
justification is appHed to sinners. It designates the 
legal consequences of forgiveness. The pardoned 
person is treated as if he were innocent ; and this 
treatment, when viewed in relation to law, is called 
justification. Hence we come to a specific use of the 
kindred Greek word for righteousness (StKatocruny). 
No doubt this word is generally used for rightness of 
character or conduct. But St. Paul identifies it with 
justification. Thus, after mentioning a " righteousness 
of God through faith . . . for all have sinned . and 
fallen short of the glory of God," he immediately adds, 



198 THE THEOLOGY OF 

"being justified freely by -His grace," etc. (Rom. iii. 
22-4; see also v. 17, 18, where the righteousness of 
ver. 17 is identified with the justification of ver, 18). 
The sinner who is justified, and therefore treated as 
righteous, has the new God-given righteousness. This 
can only mean that by the grace of forgiveness he is 
put in a new relation to God, the very same relation 
as that of a man whose conduct had been right. 
Undoubtedly there would be the dishonesty of the 
judge who is blamed in the Old Testament for justify- 
ing the wicked, if this were all that occurred. But, 
on the one hand, St. Paul directly connects the justi- 
fication and its consequent righteousness with the 
redeeming work of Christ (iiL 24); and, on the 
other, he always regards the right relation with God 
as the basis and source of a new character. That 
this second point is most important may be seen 
unmistakably when we consider St. Paul's account of 
his experience in chap, vii., where he is not primarily 
seeking forgiveness of past sin, but rather liberation 
from the indwelling tyranny of sin. Yet he attains 
his end by the justification which he discovers in 
Christ, and which issues in the condition of freedom 
from condemnation with which the following chapter 
opens. Having found the secret of Jesus, he ex- 
claims, " There is therefore now no condemnation," 
etc. (viii. 1). 

St. Paul approaches the question of justification 
from the standpoint of his early Jewish culture, 
according to which it appeared to be a result of duti- 
ful obedience to law. Sometimes he uses the word 
" law " indefinitely, without an article or in a general 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 199 

sense, for a rule of life (vii. 25 ; viii. 2), but more 
often he prefaces it with the definite article; and 
when this is not followed by any other defining words 
— when he says simply " the law " — he occasionally 
refei-s to the Pentateuch as a book {e.g., Gal. iv. 21), 
or even to the whole of the Old Testament {eg., 
Rom. iii. 19) ; but usually he means the system 
of law contained in the Pentateuch, that which is 
popularly understood as the Mosaic law. He never 
makes any distinction between the moral law and 
the ceremonial. He never says that the rules of ritual 
are to be aboKshed while the social code is retained. 
His chief contest with the Judaisers turns on a rite 
— circumcision ; but in his theological discussions he 
always leans to a consideration of the ethical require- 
ments of the law. These he regards as good. He 
gives no excuse for the extravagances of his over- 
zealous disciple Marcion in denouncing the law as 
an evil thing. Thus, referring to the tenth com- 
mandment, he writes, " The law is holy, and the 
commandment holy, and righteous, and good'* 
(viL 12), He does not deny that perfect obedience to 
the law would issue in life ; he does not deny, there- 
fore, that theoretically the Pharisees are right in 
proclaiming justification by law. It is in the insist- 
ence on a practical application of their theory that 
they are wrong. Justification in this way is impos- 
sible — not because if the means succeeded the end 
would not be attained, but because the meana never 
succeed. This leads to a rejection of the law as a 
way of salvation. It is not bad in itself; it is 
simply ineffectual. That is no real fault in the law. 



200 THE THEOLOGY OF 

The reason of failure is to be found in the flesh, 
which with St. Paul is sinful. The law is " weak 
through the flesh" (viii. 3). Now, inasmuch as 
the law confers no power to help us to perform its 
precepts, if we are to be justified and saved at all it 
must be by some other method. Here, it would seem, 
St. Peter agreed with St. Paul, for he, too, appears to 
have admitted " that a man is not justified by the 
works of the law" (Gal. ii. 16). But St. Paul went 
further. He would not allow observance of the law 
to be superadded as rule of Christian conduct, even 
though it was not resorted to as a method of salvation. 
His whole argument in the Epistle to the Galatians 
is against this practice. Such observance is a return 
to bondage. For the Christian the law is abolished. 
God had only granted it as a temporary expedient to 
lead men to Christ through its provoking sin into 
activity, and so revealing it. The law never was a 
means of salvation. St. Paul finds the proofs of his 
doctrine in the utter failure of the law to effect salva- 
tion (Rom. ii., iii.), in the fact that Abraham was 
justified on another basis before the law was insti- 
tuted (iv.), and in the triumphant fruits of the method 
of justification which he preaches (v., viii.). 

This method of justification is called " a righteous- 
ness of God" {hKaiwrmrq 0coi)). "But now," says 
St. Paul, " apart from the law a righteousness of 
God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the 
law and the prophets" (iii. 21). Righteousness is 
produced by God. It is He who justifies, sets us 
right with Himself. We must cease our strivings along 
the line of law, and accept the righteousness which 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 201 

God gives freely, if we would be justified in His sight. 
God confers righteousness of His own will, and 
on whomsoever He chooses (ix. 14-18). This does 
not mean that the action of God is arbitrary, or 
mthout good grounds. It simply means that it is His 
action. That God has His reasons for justifying 
some and not justifying others St. Paul plainly teaches 
when he breaks into a rhapsody of admiration for 
** the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and 
the knowledge of God" in regard to this matter 
(xi, 33). The reference to wisdom and knowledge 
points to great, though inscrutable, reasons for the 
Divine preference. Further, St. Paul holds that 
these reasons are associated with the character and 
conduct of men, since he says, " Whom 1S.Q foreknew, 
He also foreordained," etc. (viii. 29). It is true 
the Greek word translated "foreknew" (Trpocyvw) 
could mean "foreordained" (1 Peter i. 20); but it 
usually stands for the signification implied by its 
etymology {e.g,, Acts xxvi. 5). It must have this 
meaning here, because in this case the Apostle 
used another word to signify " He foi^ordained " 
(Trpowpto-e), and to give both words the same sense 
is to accuse St. Paul of obvious tautology. When 
discussing the rejection of Israel the Apostle appears 
to fall back on the absolute and unconditioned will 
of God in order to rebuke the impertinence of gain- 
sayers. Here God's will is concerned with the destiny 
of the nation, rather than with that of individuals. 
But even in this place St. Paul distinctly states that 
it was because of their unbelief and their stumbKng 
that the Jews were supplanted. His severe blame of 



202 THE THEOLOGY OF 

the Jews implies that the rejection of them was not arbi- 
trary. Nor does he hold that it was final. " Brethren," 
he says, " my heart's desire and my supplication to God 
is for them that they may be saved" (Rom. x. 1). 
Therefore, while the image of the potter and the 
clay is used to silence any questioning of God's right 
to determine the destinies of men, it cannot be 
pressed into a declaration that God determines those 
destinies irrespective of conduct, or that His rejec- 
tion of any people at some one time is for all time. 

On the human side the one condition of justifica- 
tion is faith. We are justified " by faith " (Ik 
7rLcrT€<os, V. 1). When St. Paul is writing of faith 
he is not thinking of the object of St. James's 
condemnation — the faith that believes in the truth 
of a proposition, but does not act upon it. His faith 
is different from that dead faith in two respects. 
First, its object is a pereon, not a dogma ; it is faith 
in God (iv. 24), faith in Christ (Gal. ii. 16). Second, 
it includes an act of will. It is not bare, intellectual 
assent; it is trust. Such faith involves the whole 
inner man. " With the heart (i.e., the inner life) 
man believeth unto righteousness " (Rom. viii. 10). 
Faith is an active power, for it works through love 
(Gal. V. 6). Though it is contrasted with the works 
of the law, still it issues in what the law really 
aimed at. This faith contains a spirit of obedience. 
It is directed to One who is a Lord as well as Saviour, 
and therefore it implies loyalty as well as confidence. 
So we read of " obedience of faith " (Rom. xvi. 26). 
Indeed, the very exercise of faith is an act of obedi- 
ence, because it is what God wills us to practise. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 203 

Now, referring to the case of Abraham, St. Paul 
reminclB us how the patriarch's faith was reckoned 
to him for righteousness (iv. 3). This he takes to be 
analogous to our justification by faith. He never 
says that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to 
us. It is faith that is imputed for righteousness, 
though this is on the ground of our Lord's propitiation. 
Such a connection of faith and righteousness is not - 
accidental and external. Abraham's personal trust 
when he received a promise of a child is the type of 
simple, loyal, heartfelt confidence in God. Who- 
ever has a similar faith is justified, simply because 
God takes this faith for righteousness. It is an act 
of grace in Him to do so. There is no merit in the 
faith, which is not like one solitary work that saves 
when all the works of the law fail. Nevertheless, it 
has in it the very essence of a right relation to God. 
Thus its connection with righteousness is inward, 
spiritual, vital. 

Justification is considered with reference to law, and 
in discussing it St. Paul draws on his rabbinical train- 
ing, and plunges into the language of the courts, so 
that here Christianity is presented to us in legal terms. 
This was natural to a man of his special training, and 
perhaps necessary in arguing with law-defending Jews. 
But when he is not engaged in the controversy with 
the Judaisers St. Paul drops the legal formulsB and 
falls back on an entirely difierent style. Now his 
mystical nature emerges. He delights to dwell on 
the personal union of the Christian with his Lord. 
It is in this way that the Apostle most frequently 
describes the deepest experiences of the spiritual life. 



204 THE THEOLOGY OF 

The Christian dies with Christ, is buried with Him, 
rises with Him, and is to seek those things which 
are above where Christ is. The visible experience 
of Christ on earth is the type and pattern of the 
spiritual experience of the Christian ; and it is more, 
for it is by union with Christ that His experience is 
repeated in His disciple. The Christian is " in Christ " 
(2 Cor. V. 17), and Christ lives in him. Thus St. Paul 
can say, " I have been crucified with Christ, yet T live ; 
and yet no longer I, but Christ Kveth in me '' 
(Gal. ii. 20). Language such as this is very frequent 
in the Epistles ; it is the Apostle^s most characteristic 
manner of speech. The legal condition of justification 
is comparatively external, and is concerned with 
entrance into the new relations with God, Union 
with Christ is internal, and belongs to the whole 
course of the Christian life. To St. Paul this is the 
very essence of Christianity. It is only by a lack 
of perception for true proportions that we select 
justification by faith as the chief characteristic of 
Paulinism. It is the chief characteristic of Pauline 
polemics. But when he drops controversy, the subject 
on which St. Paul expatiates most lovingly, and to 
which he recurs most frequently, is the mystical union 
with Christ. 

Regarded in another way, from its own internal 
experience, the Christian Kfe is the life of the Spirit. 
The Christian receives Christ, receives the Spirit of 
Christ, receives the Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 9). The 
results of this great endowment are manifold. It 
sanctifies us — i.e,, consecrates us to the holy service 
of God. It is 5kn indwelling power for the mastery 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 205 

of sin and the attainment of holiness. Thus "the 
law (or rule) of the Spirit " sets us free from " the 
law of sin" (viii. 2). The result is a higher tone 
of Kfe and thought with an accompanying sense of 
life and peace, and especially a new consciousness 
of sonship, whereby we cry "Abba, Father." The 
sonship implies freedom as opposed to the old con- 
dition of servitude, the double servitude — that of 
sin and that of law. The indwelling of the Spirit 
produces gracious fruit — " love, joy, peace, long- 
suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, 
temperance" (Gal. v. 22, 23). It also leads to a new 
insight into the deeper truths of God. " The natural 
{xlrvxucos) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 
God, for they are foolishness unto him ; and he cannot 
know them, because they are spiritually judged. But 
he that is spiritual (Tircv/xaTi/cos) judgeth all things " 
(1 Cor. ii. 14, 15). This higher attainment is not at 
once reached by all Christians. Some are still carnal, 
babes who must be fed with milk (iii. 1,2); while others 
have advanced to adult age, and are called by a title 
used for the initiated in heathen mysteries — viz., " the 
perfect " (ot rcXctot, ii. 6). Moreover, there are certain 
specific gifts of the Spirit — such as wifidom, miracle- 
working, prophecy — which are distributed variously 
among different Christians (xii. 4-1 1). While, how- 
ever, the spring and inspiration of all that is of value 
in the Christian life is found in the Spirit of God, we 
are not left to quietism. St. Paul's Epistles abound 
in practical exhortations. The Christian life is a 
race, a warfare. We are to work out our own 
salvation while God works in us (Phil. ii. 12, 13). 



206 THE THEOLOGY OF 



VI. THE CHURCH AND ITS ORDINANCES 

Following our Lord, and in agreement witli the other 
Apostles, St. Paul always represented Christianity to 
be a social religion. The unit is not the individual ; it is 
a society. Pauline Christianity could not be perfectly 
realised in the utmost sanctity of a solitary soul. It 
is essential for its development that there should be a 
community of people in whose mutual relations alone 
the highest spiritual life could be attained. But for 
the gospel to work as a leaven in general society is 
not enough ; because, although it does this, and thus 
affects the State and the family, so long as the world 
is not won to Christ there must be a distinct Christian 
society smaller than the world, confined to the brother- 
hood of those who are Christian by confession and 
life. This new, separate society has its own peculiar 
duties and privileges, conditioned by the special re- 
lationship of its members. Hence there arises a new 
affection — love of the brethren (i^tXaScX^ta). " In 
k)V0 of the brethren," writes St. Paul, " be tenderly 
affectionate one to another" (Rom. xii. 10). To the 
division of labour, which determines the advance of 
material prosperity, and the organisation of mutual 
civic relations which constitutes a nation, there corre- 
sponds in the Christian society a separation of function 
and a mutual co-operation. We fl,re members one of 
another. We need one another. We exist for the 
good of the whole body. In a measure we flourish or 
decline according as our whole brotherhood flourishes 
or declines. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 207 

The name of the Christian brotherhood is " Church " 
(cKKXT/o-ta). This word is only found twice in the 
Gospels on the lips of our Lord. On one of these 
occasions it is used prophetically of the whole com- 
munity of Christians in the future (Matt. xvi. 18) ; 
on the other it refers to an accessible assembly 
(x\'iii. 17). The growth in numbers which followed 
the great missionary outburst at Pentecost, the coiu-se 
of time which led to the demand for some settled 
order of Christian life, and the lack of the visible 
presence of Christ, which threw His disciples more 
upon one another, were three influences all tending 
to give greater importance to the idea of the Church. 
Accordingly this is very prominent in the apostolic 
era. The word would be familiar to Jews as the 
Greek name for the " congregation " of Israel {e.g,, 
Judg. xid. 8). To the Greeks themselves it would 
suggest an orderly assembly of the enfranchised 
citizens for the discharge of the business of the State, 
although it was also used loosely for any concourse of 
people, even a self-collected mob {e,g,, Acts xix. 32). 
By St. Paul it is applied to two distinct, though 
related, ideas.. 

In the first place, the word " Church " stands for 
a local community of Christians. Thus we read of 
" the Church of God which is at Corinth " (1 Cor. i. 2), 
of "the Churches of Galatia" (xvi. 1), and even 
of the Church in a house (Rom. xvi. 5 ; Col. iv. 15). 
The latter phrase may mean the whole Christian 
community in one locaKty, this meeting in a private 
house; or, as the house Church seems to be dis- 
tinguished from the general Church, mwe probably 



208 THE THEOLOGY OF 

a Christian household. The members of such a 
Church are all addressed as saints (aytot). St. Paul 
is far from assuming that they are immaculate ; many 
of them are very backward, some of them are most 
faulty, and need the exercise of sharp discipline — to 
be dehvered over to Satan " for the destruction of the 
flesh, that the spirit may be taved" (1 Cor. v. 5). 
Still, all are addressed as consecrated men and women ; 
it is assumed that all are true disciples of Christ. 

In the second place, St. Paul uses the word 
** Church " for the whole body of Christians. It is 
scarcely correct to call this the invisible Church, for it 
is not ideal, distant, future, or only spiritual. The ties 
that bind the members are not seen ; it has not yet any 
external organisation, there is no common government 
of it other than the spiritual government by Christ. 
Still, it consists of visible members, — all Chiistian men, 
women, and children; it is, in fact, the catholic Church, 
although the word " catholic " is not attached to it by 
St. Paul, and although the idea of any contrasted 
Churches in schism or heresy is never contemplated by 
him. The only schism he knows takes place within the 
Church. The local Church may be rent by divisions. 
But all sections of Christians still belong to "the 
Church of God." This Church is one body, with many 
members mutually serviceable. It is the body of 
Christ. When He is thought of as dwelling in it and 
permeating it, He is regarded as the Soul in relation 
to the body (1 Cor. xii. 12, 27). Later, when our 
Lord is contemplated as ruling it, St. Paul changes 
the image, and writes of Christ as the Head (Eph. 
iv. 15). In considering the relation of the Church 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 209 

to God, the Apostle writes of it as God's " tilled field," 
and God*s " building " (1 Cor. iii. 9), because it is His 
work; and as a "sanctuary" (vaos) of God, because 
He dwells in it (Eph. ii. 21). In the Church all are 
brethren; here the distinctions of Jew and Gentile, 
Greek and barbarian, bond and free, vanish. The 
idea of the kingdom of Grod, which is so prominent 
in our Lord's teaching, recedes in the teaching of the 
Apostles. St. Paul, as Professor Stevens has pointed 
out,* describes the Church as the present community 
of Christians, and the kingdom as something future, 
to come after our Lord's second advent. 

St. Paul discusses many details of the discipline of 
the Church, but he does not lay down any rules for 
its definite organisation. He never drops a hint 
that the Spirit of God is given in any especial way to 
or through a clerical order. All the members of the 
Church receive the Spirit But the gift is variously 
distributed in different kinds of endowments. All are 
invited to desire earnestly the greater gifts ; and yet 
charity is better than the best of them (1 Cor. xii. 31) 
A consequence of the variety of gifts is a correspond- 
ing diversity of functions in the service of the Church. 
Within the local Church the gift of prophecy, i.e., 
inspired utterance, stands first (Rom. xii. 6) ; but in 
relation to the whole Christian economy the Apostles 
are named first ; " And He gave some to be apostles, 
and some prophets" (Eph. iv. 11). These two classes 
are most fundamental. The Church is " built upon 
the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (ii 20). 
St. Paul attaches a unique authority to the apostle- 
* The Pauline Theology ^ p. 319 ff. 

14 



210 THE THEOLOGY OF 

ship, because it owes its appointment to God and its 
call to Christ, without any intermediate human agency 
(Gal. i. 1). In his earlier epistles, although there 
are indefinite references to persons in authority (e.g,^ 
1 Thess. V. 12), no other formal office appears, and 
even the apostleship is not an office within any Church, 
but one of general oversight and guidance, by instruc- 
tion and admonition. Later, in his captivity, St. Paul 
recognises two orders of the ministry, "bishops and 
deacons " (Phil. i. 1). The Pastoral Epistles contain 
careful directions concerning the characters of persons 
who should be appointed, and Timothy and Titus 
appear as visiting commissioners in charge of the 
appointment, but no title is given to them. Here 
St. Paul identifies the bishop with the elder (Titus 
i. 5, 7), who is met with in the history of a much 
earlier period (Acts xi. 30). 

Although the Apostle gives no common name, such 
as " sacrament," to the two ordinances of baptism and 
the Lord's Supper, on one occasion he refers to them 
together, as if they possessed common characteristics 
(1 Cor. X. 1-4). Baptism is with St. Paul the indi- 
cation of entrance into the Church. He writes, " Li 
one Spirit were we all baptised into one body" 
(xii. 13) ; and again, " As many of you as were baptised 
into Christ did put on Christ" (Gal. iii. 27). Yet 
he cannot mean that the mere rite of baptism has 
brought about the tremendous change which he pre- 
dicates of all who are in Christ. This would be quite 
inconsistent with the spirit of his teaching, which was 
to turn us away from weak and beggarly elements to 
higher things — Divine and spiritual. His treatment 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 211 

of circumcision as a carnal ordinance would lose all 
its force if he substituted for it another carnal ordi- 
nance. Moreover, it would be impossible to harmonise 
this with his definite teaching of justification by faith. 
His thankfulness that he only baptised two or three 
people (1 Cor. i. 14, 15) is inconceivable if he attached 
to baptism the awful importance of the one appointed 
means of salvation. But as the seal of confession it 
testifies to the faith that saves. St. Paul expects faith 
to issue in baptism, and he takes the baptism as a 
sign of loyal confession. He never refers to infant 
baptism, but he mentions the baptism of a house- 
hold, which may have contained children (ver. 16). 
Naturally the Churches to which he wrote would 
consist chiefly of persons converted in adult age. 

St. Paul approaches the subject of the Lord's 
Supper with peculiar reverence. He is careful to 
point out that the institution was founded by Jesus 
Christ Himself, and he cites the full tradition of 
its origin (xi. 23-5). From this we may gather 
that he considers the ordinance to be primarily a 
memorial service ; for he quotes the words " This do 
in remembrance of Me," and adds his own remark, 
"For as often as ye eat this bread and drink the 
cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till He come." He 
could not have taken Christ's words literally, so as 
to teach transubstantiation, because his idea of the 
resurrection body, which our Lord now possesses, is 
explicitly not that of a body of flesh and blood. 
Besides, the blood of Christ as His life given for us is 
a familiar thought with St. Paul. He must therefore 
have understood the elements to represent the person 



212 THE THEOLOGY OF 

and life. At the same time, St. Paul teaches that the 
Lord's Supper is a communion (icotvwvia, x. 16) — 
i,e.y a means of real fellowship with Christ, in con- 
trast with the fellowship with demons at idol-feasts. 
Therefore the Christian is to avoid the contamination 
of heathen associations, and to keep the Lord's Supper 
clear of abuses. To fail to discern the Lord's body, 
to miss Christ in the feast, is to be guilty of wrong 
to His very person. 



VII. THE FUTURE 

St. Paul agreed with his brethren of the primitive 
Church in anticipating the second advent of our Lord. 
The Parousia Ls more prominent in his earlier than 
in his later epistles. But although the thought 
recedes it is never abandoned ; we meet with it as late 
as the epistles of the Captivity {e.g,, Phil. iii. 20 ; 
Col. iii. 4). It seems to be indubitable that at first St. 
Paul expected the great event to happen during his own 
lifetime. Thus, after referring to the resurrection of 
the dead, he adds, ^^ Then we that are alive, that are 
left, shall together with them be caught up in the 
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air " (1 Thess. iv. 17) ; 
and again, " We shall not all sleep, but we shall all 
be changed ; . . . the dead shall be raised incorruptible, 
and we shall be changed" (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52). It 
must be remembered that the Apostle himself men- 
tioned the partial and imperfect nature of prophecy, 
and included his own gifts in the limitations, when he 
wrote, " We know in part, and we prophesy in part " 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 213 

(xiiL 9), and "Now I know in part" (ver. 12). He 
never professed to foresee the time of the Parousia; 
but he knew it could not be just due, for he corrected 
the mistake of the Thessalonians, who were neglecting 
the duties of daily life in anticipation of the immediate 
end of the present dispensation, teaching that dark, 
troublous times must intervene (2 Thess. ii. 2, 3). He 
identified the second advent of Christ with " the day 
of the Lord " so often referred to in Hebrew prophecy. 
It was to be the coming of Christ to judgment. 
St. Paul teaches that the judgment is to be universal. 
Christians will not escape it, and they will be judged 
according to their deeds. In this connection St. Paul 
makes no reference to his great doctrine of justification 
by faith. As far as we can gather from his writings 
generally, he only uses that doctrine in his descriptions 
of the method of entering the Christian life, and so 
disposing of the guilt of sin committed before con- 
version. We must not forget that his main contention 
with the Galatians turned on the folly of attempting 
to reach perfection by the method of law after having 
entered on the Christian life by the new and perfect 
way of faith. In writing to the Corinthians he said, 
« We walk by faith " (2 Cor. v. 7). Thus faith is 
necessary throughout the Christian life. Still, the 
Christian is accountable for his conduct. The servant 
of Christ will have to appear before his Mastei* 
to be judged according to his deeds (ver. 10). The 
advent of our Lord is followed by His reign. This 
corresponds to the millennium of the Apocalypse^ but 
St. Paul does not limit it to a thousand years. It 
will go on as long as it is needed for the conquest of 



214 THE THEOLOGT OF 

all Christ's enemies, a victory which will be perfectly 
achieved. Death itself will be vanquished — i.e., no 
one will die any more — ^and probably no soul will any 
longer be held in thrall to death. When this last 
enemy is overthrown the Messianic work of Christ will 
be complete, His Kingship will come to an end. He 
will deliver up His kingdom to His Father, and God 
will be all in all (1 Cor. xv. 24-8). 

With the second advent of Christ is closely asso- 
ciated the resurrection of the dead. In his earlier 
writings St. Paul had referred to an intermediate 
state of sleep (e.^., 1 Thess. iv. 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51), 
After the riot at Ephesus, as Prof. Sabatier has 
acutely observed, he seems to have abandoned the 
expectation of himself living until the Parousia ; 
and thenceforth he appears to have anticipated 
passing on to the resurrection life at death, the 
spiritual body being ready when the material body 
is laid aside (2 Cor. v. 1-10). Therefore to depairt 
and be with Christ is considered by the Apostle to 
be " very far better " than life on earth — such a life 
as he had while imprisoned at Rome (Phil. i. 23). 
St. Paul has no sympathy with the Greek thought of 
the free, immortal soul. He would not be " unclothed.*' 
Yet while he views the subject from the Oriental 
standpoint, what he means by the resurrection is a 
return to full active vitality, which he conceives to 
be attained by rising in a new bodily form ; and he 
repudiates the gross Jewish conception of a recovery 
of the animal organism, flesh and blood shall not 
inherit the kingdom of God Because flesh and 
blood are corruptible things they will be laid aside 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 215 

in favour of an incorruptible body — a body which 
is as adapted to the higher nature of man (irvcvfjua) 
as the animal body was to the lower nature («/^x^). 
This idea of a spiritual body (o-w/ia irveviiariKov) is 
very significant ; it marks the Apostle's inspired in- 
sight and progress beyond the impossible notions of his 
contemporg,ries. He does not say whether the spiritual 
body is constructed of anything material. He may 
have imagined it to be a body of pure light, literally and 
physically radiant. But probably he was satisfied with 
the general idea of a body suited to the spirit, and far 
more refined than the animal organism, without 
knowing what it was to be in its essential nature. 
The resurrection thus described by St. Paul is for 
Christians, for those who have the gift of eternal life 
in Christ. The Apostle never says anything about 
a general resurrection of mankind. All his language 
on the subject is associated with the idea of personal 
relation to Christ. Thus we have not only the 
argument from silence against the expectation of the 
resurrection of those who are not in Christ, but 
further, the method and process of the resurrection 
exclude them. Christ is the firstborn among many 
brethren. We see " Christ the firstfruits; then they 
that are Christ's at His coming" (1 Cor. xv. 23). 
According to the earlier teaching, " The dead in Christ 
shall rise first ; then we that are alive, that are 
left, shall together with them be caught up in the 
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 
iv. 16, 17). Here it is manifest that the emphasis 
in the first sentence is on *Hhe dead," not on "in 
Christ"; for the contrast is not with those outside 



216 THE THEOLOGY OF 

in Christ, but with the living, " we that are alive " ; 
and all are in Christ, all are to meet their Lord and 
dwell with Him. 

This idea of confining the resurrection to Christians 
is quite in harmony with the teaching of St. Paul 
about the lost. He declares that " the wages of sin 
is death " (Rom. vi. 23). Knowing that he accepted 
the Jewish doctrine of the introduction of physical 
death by Adam, we cannot doubt that, in the first 
place, he thinks here of that death. It would seem, 
then, that primarily the punishment of sin is what 
we call natural death, and that for the lost this is 
without a resurrection. We cannot, however, conclude 
t^iat death brings absolute extinction of being or the 
total cessation of consciousness. We have seen that 
it was not affirmed to involve anything of the kind 
in the teaching of Christ. From St. Paul's earlier 
epistles it might be supposed that, physically, the 
state of all the dead is similar, while some are waiting 
for the resurrection which others have no right to 
anticipate. Since in his riper meditation it is a 
joyous prospect to contemplate fellowship with Christ 
immediately after death, to miss that fellowship 
and to be excluded from the future kingdom must 
be a dismal doom. St. Paul refers to the wrath 
which an impenitent man treasures up for the day 
of wrath (ii. 5). He may be thinking of judgment 
on earth, but it is more probable that for most this 
will correspond to the day of the Lord, which brings 
light and gladness to those who are in Jesus. Still, 
St. Paul never says that the punishment of sin is 
eternal torment. He calls it " corruption " (ff>dop6. — 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 217 

" he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh 
reap corruption," Gal. vi. 8), ** destruction " (aTrwXcta — 
" whose end is destruction,!' Phil. iii. 19), and " death." 
While death and destruction are the natural con- 
sequences of sin, the gospel of Jesus Christ brings 
eternal life and its accompanying resurrection. Is 
this gospel offered to the dead, and have those who 
suffered death in their impenitence still an oppor- 
tunity of meeting Christ in the future, and so 
obtaining life through Him? There is much in 
St. Paul that seems to indicate that glorious idea, 
though in vague and general outline. Thus the 
Apostle writes of the complete triumph of Christ, 
when the last enemy, death, is to be abolished 
(1 Cor. XV. 2ft). The final triumph may be imagined 
in two ways. All the impenitent may be extin- 
guished, put out of being; and one phrase in an 
early epistle seems to point in that direction. St. 
Paul writes of those " who shall suffer punishment, 
even eternal destruction {pk^Bpov aloiviov) from 
the face of the Lord," etc. (2 Thess. i. 9). But 
tliis phrase is never repeated. On the other hand, 
the unbounded exultation of the Apostle over the 
perfectly successful work of Christ and its glorious 
fruits rather points to another explanation — viz., 
to the view of the final restoration of all. The 
whole argument of Rom. v. goes to show how 
the domain of the redeeming work of Christ is as 
wide as that of the ruin of sin. In the course of 
his argument the Apostle says, " So then, as through 
one trespass the judgment came unto all men to 
condemnation ; even so through one act of righteous- 



218 THE THEOLOGY OF 

ness the free gift came unto all men to justification 
of life" (ver. 18). It may be replied that this only 
refers to the provision of salvation and the free offer 
of it, not to the acceptance and actual realisation of 
it; still, the conclusion that *•' where sin abounded, 
grace did abound more exceedingly " (ver. 20), seems 
to indicate a success in the gracious work of Christ 
that is no less than the havock wrought by sin. When, 
in writing of the resurrection, the Apostle says, " As 
in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made 
alive" (1 Cor. xv. 22), he seems to mean that the 
life-giving work of Christ is as extensive as the death 
which is the fate of all mankind. We have seen that 
he did not teach a general resurrection, a resiurrection 
for those who are not in Christ, and here it is in 
Christ that all are to be made alive. Therefore this 
passage seems to adumbrate a future union of all 
with Christ, and their consequent enjoyment of life 
from Him. , 

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO 
THE HEBREWS 

This anonymous work appears to have been 
addressed to the Hebrew Chiistians in Palestine 
of the second generation, who, discouraged by the 
failure of their kinsmen to accept Christianity, the 
disappointment of their hopes of Messianic glory, 
and the distresses and persecutions with which they 
were overwhelmed, were beginning to hanker after the 
old associations of Judaism, doubting whether, after 
all, they had not made a mistake in exchanging the 



TBE NEW TESTAMENT 219 

Synagogue for the Church. The writer both consoles 
them in their present calamities and fortifies them 
against the fascination of the worship of their child- 
hood by an eloquent exposition of the superiority of 
the new covenant to the old, worked out point by 
point through the most elaborate argument that is 
to be found in the Bible. The old covenant did not 
satisfy the hopes it raised ; Joshua did not give 
the Israelites rest ; the priesthood of Aaron and the 
sacrifices of the tabernacle did not take away sin. 
Yet God's promises could not fail. They must 
therefore be fulfilled in another and more per- 
fect order, of which the Levitical system was but 
the preliminary adumbration. This is found in 
Christianity. The religion of Jesus Christ contains 
all that the Jews had learned to love in their old 
faith, in a better and higher form ; contains, indeed, 
the reality and power of what in Judaism was but 
shadow and symbol. The author of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews is evidently allied to St. Paul in the 
fundamental elements of his gospel — in the complete 
abandonment of Judaism, the lofty conception of 
Christ, the perception of the atoning efficacy of the 
sacrifice of Christ, the great value attached to faith 
as the root of personal religion. But in his form of 
thought, in the whole atmosphere of his teaching, he 
is far from the methods of the great Apostle. While 
St. Paul views Judaism as a law directing man's 
strivings after justification, the author of this Epistle 
thinks of it as a cult, associated with the tabernacle 
worship in which priestly functions and sacrifices are 
provided by Grod. With the one the law was but an 



220 THE THEOLOGY OF 

interlude intended to reveal sin and drive despairing 
souls to Christ ; with the other the Hebrew worship 
contained great ideas which it did not realise, but 
which are realised in Christ. Thus in the former 
aspect the law is done away with absolutely by the 
introduction of a different and contradictory method 
of justification ; but in the latter the Old Testament 
religion is fulfilled, and it is abolished only because 
it is superseded by the New Covenant, which 
accomplishes the very things the first covenant had 
proposed. 

In the execution of his programme the author proves 
himself to be a student of Alexandrian thought, 
familiar with the Book of Wisdom, and echoing 
Philo. Thus, above the visible world of sense is the 
invisible, spiritual world, where, in quite Platonic 
fashion, the archetypes of what are most prized on 
earth are to be found ; the tabernacle. Mount Sion, 
Jerusalem, the worship and service of God, all have 
their higher, heavenly counterparts. Yet the writer 
is not a mere Alexandrian. He is much nearer to 
St. Paul than to the Hellenist philosopher. Philo 
allegorises the Old Testament in the most artificial 
way, making out its narratives to be images of 
wholly alien philosophic ideas. But in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews the Old Testament is accepted as- a 
partial anticipation of Christian facts which are similar 
in kind though greater in attainment as befits the 
region of spiritual realities to which they belong. 
The author attaches the highest possible value to 
the Old Testament as a record of Divine revelation ; 
and though he invariably quotes from the LXX., he 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 221 

attributes the words cited in the most direct way to 
Grod, ignoring the agency of the prophetic speaker 
or writer. Basing his argument on these Scriptures, 
he shows how Christianity is a covenant which super- 
sedes the Mosaic covenant. The idea of the new 
covenant is the root-thought of the Epistle, by relation 
to which everything is viewed and tasted. Evidently 
it is derived from the often-mentioned prophecy of 
Jeremiah that Grod would grant such a covenant 
(Jer. xxxi. 31). It has the support of the words of 
Christ at the institution of the Lord's Supper, " This 
cup is the new covenant in My blood" (1 Cor. xi. 25). 
The covenant here, as elsewhere in the Bible, is not 
an agreement between two parties who bargain on 
equal terms, but a dispensation originating in God 
and offered to man on certain conditions with the 
pledge of Divine promises (not a avvO'^Krj, but a 
SiatfijKTy). Thus it is a sign of God's goodness to 
men, a dispensation of grace. 

While the idea of the new covenant supplies the 
form under which the whole scheme of thought is 
arranged, the realisation of that idea is shown to be 
in Jesus Christ, and therefore the doctrine of Christ 
is the primary doctrine of the Epistle. With our 
author, as with St. Paul, Christianity is just the 
religion of Christ. All truth radiates from Him, and 
is estimated by its relation to Him. In describing the 
person of Christ the writer combines the very highest 
conception of His Divinity with more emphatic and 
touching traits of His real humanity than are to be 
found anywhere else in the New Testament. The 
Divine Sonship is a favourite idea of the Epistle. 



222 THE THEOLOGY OF 

The contrast between the old covenant and the new 
appears first of all in the difference between the 
broken and partial revelation by means of prophets 
and the one perfect revelation in a Son (i. 1, 2). 
Perhaps it is with an eye to the undue exaltation of 
angels among the Jews of his day that the author 
shows how much Christ, as the Son, is higher than 
the angels, who are but ministering spirits. Coming 
down to the specific Israelite dispensation, he con- 
trasts the Sonship of Christ in the house of God with 
the position of Moses, the great founder of the nation, 
who was but a servant. Joshua, though he led Israel 
into the promised land, could not give the rest which 
Christ gives. The whole Levitical system, with Aaron 
at its head, is inferior to Christianity, chiefly because 
of its priests' inferiority to Christ. The argument is 
based on the Old Testament Scriptures, and mostly 
on passages drawn from Messianic Psalms; but so 
convinced is the author of the true Divinity of Jesus 
Christ, he dors not hesitate to apply to Him words 
which were plainly written in the first place of Groi 
Thus he quotes the verses beginning, " Thou, Lord, in 
the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth," 
and assigns them to the Son of God (ver. 10). He has 
no difficulty in using the word Lord {Kvpim) indis- 
criminately for God and for Christ. Then the Son 
is heir of all things, and the Mediator of creation — 
" through whom also He made the worlds " (ver. 2). 
These two passages plainly imply pre-existence. 
They are not contradicted by the phrase " this day 
have I begotten Thee " (ver. 5), because, even if that 
referred to the human birth or the baptism of our 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 223 

Lord, it would not exclude previous existence in 
another sphere — in the latter case previous existence 
on earth is taken for granted. But we are not driven 
to this interpretation. In quoting Psalm ii. the 
writer does not accentuate every word he takes over, 
and he may not have the significance of this phraso 
in mind, or he may interpret it in relation to 
the eternal day of God's thought. At all events, 
Beyschlag's attempt to show that the pre-existence 
ascribed to Christ in the Epistle is ideal does violence 
to the text. He says that the author " in the naive 
way of Biblical realism has personified the Logos." * 
How so? The author is not writing about the 
Logos, but about the Son. There is not a shadow of 
an indication that he confuses the personifying of an 
idea with the idea of a person. The crisp, definite 
thought of the Son is maintained throughout. In 
one passage, if we are to read it in the only way the 
Greek permits — whatever may have been the original 
meaning of the Hebrew — the writer carries over a 
direct address to God, and applies it to Christ, quoting 
the words, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and 
ever" (ver. 8). 

In his relation to the Father the Son takes a 
secondary place. It is God who appointed Him heir 
of all things (ver. 2), called Him to His own right hand 
(ver. 13), subjected all things to Him (ii. 8), raised 
Him from the dead (xiii. 20). He is the most exact 
revelation of God to us, as the sun's rays (dTravyatr^a) 
are of the sun, as the effigy on the seal (xapajcTT^p) is 
of its original (i. 3). 

♦ Nettt. Theol,, vol. ii., p. 30^^. 



224 THE THEOLOGY OF 

The humanity of Christ is described with unwonted 
fulness and force. He was made for a time " lower 
than the angels" (ii. 9). Thus He became a true 
and complete man subject to human suffering, 
" who in the days of His flesh having offered up 
prayers and supplications with strong crying and 
tears unto Him that was able to save Him from 
death, and having been heard for His godly fear, 
though He was a Son, yet learned obedience by the 
things which He suffered" (v. 7, 8). These suffer- 
ings were in part for His own needs. They were the 
means by which as a man He was " made perfect " 
(tcXcmuScis, ver. 9). In one thing only He differed 
from us : He was sinless. He was tempted, but 
without sin (x^pW afiapTias) — without any contact 
with sin, either as the preliminary prompting of evil 
desire, or as the final issue of the consenting will 
(iv. 15). His incarnation was essential to His 
priestly work on behalf of men for two great purposes 
— ^firsli^ that He might be their representative before 
God (ii. 17), and, second, that He might succour them 
in their trials by means of His sympathy and close 
union with them (ver. 18). 

The doctrine of the high-priesthood of Christ, 
although in harmony with scattered hints elsewhere, 
is in its fulness and explicit exposition peculiar to the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. The author's comparison 
between the two covenants naturally leads him to 
consider the sacerdotal office which was so prominent 
in the earlier one. This he finds far more perfectly 
realised in our Lord than in the family of Aaron. 
He begins by affirming of Christ two essential notes 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 225 

of priesthood. First, the priest must be a man. This 
idea is dwelt on most earnestly. The author seems 
to think that human sympathies are quite essential 
to true priestliness. The priest*s very infirmities help 
him, because he is the best priest who is the most 
sympathising brother. This idea we see perfectly 
realised in Christ (iv. 14 — v. 2). Then the priest 
must be appointed by God. The self-made priest is 
no real priest. But as Aaron was divinely appointed, 
so also is Christ, in evidence of which fact the author 
quotes from Psalms ii. and ex. (v. 5, 6). Having 
thus affii-med the reality of Christ's priesthood, and 
in this respect its resemblance to that of Aaron, he 
proceeds to point out the differences between the 
two. Now Christ's priesthood is compared with 
that of Melcbizedek, King of Salem, whose historical 
features are almost lost sight of in his typical 
character. The argument is based on Psalm ex. com- 
bined with allusions to the history in Genesis and 
to facts in the life and death of Christ. These data 
give rise to the following conclusions that go to show 
the superiority of the priesthood of Christ to that of 
Aaron : — (1) The Levitical high-priesthood was held in 
succession by a series of mortal men ; Christ is the one 
High-priest abiding for ever. (2) Abraham doing 
homage to Melchizedek is a sign that the priesthood 
of his descendants is inferior to that of the King of 
Salem ; Christy who is after the order of Melchizedek, 
takes the higher rank of one who receives this 
homage. (3) Aaron and his sons, being sinful, needed 
to offer for themselves before they could atone for 
their brethren ; Christ, being sinless, had no occasion 

15 



226 THE THSOLOGY OF 

to sacrifice for Himself. (4) The Levitical sacrifices 
were of animals whose blood and ashes could never 
really take away sin ; Christ offered Himself as a true 
sacrifice. (5) All the Levitical offices were performed 
on earth, in connection with a material tabernacle, 
and therefore they could not affect higher relations ; 
Christ entered the heavens, and carried the atonement 
into the highest regions, thus achieving spiritually what 
earthly high-priests could only attempt materially. 

The great priestly work is the offering of a sacrifice, 
and Christ realises His priesthood in the sacrifice of 
Himself. This never appears as the propitiation 
of Divine wrath. It is viewed in a twofold relation 
— ^as a purification from sin, and as a ratification 
of the new covenant. The two effects are in no 
way contradictory. They run parallel. Nay, they 
help one another in together defeating the power 
of Satan. It was sin that broke the first covenant. 
The new covenant can only be held good when sin 
is purged away (ix. 15). Pfleiderer ascribed an 
entirely external character to the author's doctrine 
of redemption, holding that it meant no more than 
deliverance from the guilt of sin. That it includes 
this deliverance cannot be denied. The cleansing 
of "the conscience" (<rw€t(8i7o-tv) seems to point to 
such a result. But we cannot stay here. The writer 
asks if the sacrifice of Christ is not to " cleanse your 
conscience from dead works, to serve the living God." 
(ver. 14). The latter part of this phrase is as truly 
connected with the sacrifice as the earlier part.* 

* Pfleiderer admitted the force of this in his later work, 
UrchrUtenthum, p. 636. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 227 

Moreover, as Beyschlag points out, the idea of 
sanctification which our author associates with the 
sacrifice of Christ is never taken in the New Testa- 
ment in a merely external manner ; it always includes 
that change of character which makes consecration to 
God a reality and not an empty form, that holiness 
without which it is impossible to see God.f 

In his interpretation of the sacrifice of Christ the 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews comes nearer 
to a theory of the atonement than any other New 
Testament writer. He evidently connects this with 
the death of Christ, the shedding of whose blood 
is compared to that of the victim at the altar. He 
also alludes to the rites on the day of atonement. 
Christ was offered to "bear the sins of many" 
(ver. 28), reminding us of the scapegoat over the 
head of which the people's sins were confessed, so 
that it might carry them away to the demon in 
the wilderness. This approaches St. Paul's daring 
conception of our Lord being " made sin for us." The 
efficacy of Christ's sacrifice is not sought in this 
direction, however ; it is looked for in the spirit with 
which He suffered. Animal sacrifices could not atone 
for sin, because they could not really please God. 
All that God delights in is an obedient will Accord- 
ingly a body was prepared for Christ — Le,, He became 
incarnate in order that He might come into the 
sphere of human obedience. He said, "Lo, I am 
come to do Thy will ; ... by which will we have 
been sanctified through the offering of the body of 
Jesus Christ once for all " (x. 9, 10). His obedience 
t Neut. Theol^ vol. ii., p. 317 



228 THE THEOLOGY OF 

in death was accepted by God as that most perfect 
surrender which is the very essence of sacrifice. He 
obeyed as a man, and His hilman sacrifice furnished 
the ground for passing over the sin of mankind in 
gracious forgiveness. At the same time, it is the 
most potent influence for consecrating and purifying 
all who follow Christ. We cannot dissociate these 
two results. In the Epistle they are inextricably 
mingled. God pardons in Christ a people who are 
to be made holy by Christ. 

On the human side faith appears as the secret of 
all that is good and great. Unlike St. Paul, the 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews regards faith 
mainly as a spring of action, as the confidence in 
Grod which inspires heroism. The disheartening spirit 
which, by failing in faith and sinking back into 
despair, threatens to abandon the Christian course 
is severely reprobated. For those who yield to this 
tendency there is practically no hope of recovery; 
they have renounced the one saving means of grace. 
But for the loyal and patient there is the prospect 
of rest in the city of God (iv. 9 ; xiii. 14). 



THE JOHANNINE TYPE 

I. THE APOCALYPSE 

Whatever line of interpretation we follow, or 
even if we hold that the key by means of which 
the secret of the elaborate symbolism of this book 
may be unlocked has not yet been found, one great 
idea flames out of the. whole work and buins 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 229 

itself into our imagination as we read the glowing 
pagas. Clothed in the pageantry of Oriental imagery, 
which is alternately sombre and gorgeous, the domi- 
nant thought of the book is " God in history," God 
present in the midst of the moving drama of events, 
God actively directing the course of the tortuous 
current towards the grand consummation. The 
picture is painted on the largest possible canvas. The 
subject is not the salvation or ruin of the individual, 
but the judgment and final renewal of the world. 
Ck)d is here seen as " King of kings." The first lesson 
taught is that He is profoundly and very practically 
concerned with the history of mankind. That history 
is seen to be a dreadful conflict. It does not move on 
as a smooth process of evolution. There is blood, and 
fire, and fury in it. At present the evil seems to be 
dominant, and the ruling spirit Satan, the great red 
dragon. Therefore God must first come to judgment, 
and many woes are depicted in His train. But the 
prophecy is not pessimistic. After the overthrow of 
the evil, God will establish a new heaven and a new 
earth. The near future may be dark and threatening ; 
beyond it lies the final future, bathed in the celestial 
radiance of unspeakable bliss. Thus the book is an 
allegorical picture of the great conflict in which the 
powers of evil and their earthly agents, bad men, 
especially bad ruling powers, will be judged and 
overthrown ; so that, after all the toil, and strife, 
and agony of the process, in the end, while Grod is 
triumphant, His suffering servants will enter into a 
new era of peace and blessedness, an era of purity 
and perfection for the whole renovated world. 



230 THE THEOLOGY OF 

The work being concerned more with the social 
and historical region than with the internal and 
spiritual, the doctrines that affect personal religion 
are necessarily not prominent, and the more purely 
theological ideas only emerge casually and indirectly. 
It is not designed to teach theology, but to apply it 
to the destiny of mankind. The supreme right of 
God exercised in the government of the world is the 
dominant thought. He is emphatically the living, 
the eternal Creator and Sovereign. He appears on 
His throne (iv. 2, etc.), reigning, ruling, regulating 
all things. Next we see Jesus Christ highly exalted 
as the Leader of the Divine movement of history. 
He is the risen, glorified Christ. Both His humanity 
and His Divinity are apparent. The simple name 
" Jesus " is repeatedly used with great significance 
to point back to the life of our Lord on earth, and 
to remind us of the identity of personality persistent 
still in the state of exaltation («.^., xvii. 6; xxii. 16). 
The description of Him as One " like a Son of man " 
(i. 13-16) does not directly assert His real humanity, 
and might even be read in a Docetic sense ; but it is 
plainly an allusion to the vision in Daniel (vii. 13), and 
must be taken therefore as symbolical of our Lord's 
humane gentleness and superiority to the prevalent 
world powers that are represented by ferocious brute 
beasts. * His human relationship, however, is dis- 
tinctly asserted: He is "the Lion of the tribe of 
Judah " (Rev. v. 5), and both " the root and the off- 
spring of David " (xxii. 16). But the greatest emphasis 
is laid on His Divine nature. Peculiar titles attributed 
to God are also ascribed to Christ. Thus, after read- 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 231 

ing '* I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord 
God, which is and which was and which is to come, 
the Almighty" (i. 8), we find our Lord describing 
Himself as "the first and the last" (ver. 18; ii. 8), 
and saying, " I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first 
and the last, the beginning and the end" (xxii. 13). 
He has " the keys of death and of Hades " (i. 18) — 
t.e., a right to determine both who shall die, and who 
shall be raised again from the dead. In His exaltation 
He has a new name given Him, the full import 
of which He alone understands. This is no other 
than the name which reappears in the prologue of the 
fourth Gaspel— *^ The Word of God " (6 \oyos tov 0€oO, 
xix. 13), although we may observe a difference of usage 
in that, while here it comes before us as a title 
assigned to Christ after His exaltation in reward for 
His fidelity, in the Gospel it describes His eternal 
pre-existence. With these statements before us we 
cannot take the phrase " the beginning of the creation 
of God " (17 dpx^ T^s KTto-ccjs TOV 0€ov, iii. 14) to mean 
that Christ was Himself a creature. The interpreta- 
tion "principle of creation" will not hold, as the 
Greek word (ap^) is associated with the word that 
means " end " (jiKo^\ and therefore must signify 
"beginning" (xxii. 13). But this very association 
separates its subject from the contents of creation. 
He who is both the beginning and the end can only be 
the beginning in the sense that what reaches its con- , 
summation in Him is also founded in Him, and the 
thought must be connected with the Logos doctrine. 
Here we see clearly the idea of the personal pre- 
existence of Christ, as well as that of His relation 



232 TEE THEOLOGY OF 

to creation. At the same time^ even in this book, 
which so highly exalts His glory, that subordination 
to the Father which is apparent elsewhere throughout 
the New Testament is not forgotten. The very open- 
ing words of the introduction speak of " the revelation 
of Jesus Christ which God gave Him " (i. 1), and God 
is called " His God and Father " (ver. 6). 

With reference to the work of Christ, His prophetic 
office is referred to when He is described as "the 
faithful witness*' (i. 5; iii. 14), but His redeeming 
death is more fully dwelt upon. His saving work is 
regarded chiefly as an act of redemption. It con- 
sists primarily in deliverance from sin — He "loosed 
us from our sins " (i. 5). It also residts in restora- 
tion to God — "He made us to be a kingdom, to 
be priests unto His God and Father" (ver. 6). In 
the song of the redeemed they declare themselves 
to be purchased unto God (v. 9). This salvation is 
eflFected by means of the death of Christ — He is 
worthy who "was slain"; He purchased His people 
by "His blood" {ibid.). With this subject we 
must associate the peculiar name given to Christ. 
He is the Lamb {apvLov).* Whether St. John is 
here alluding to the passover lamb ; or whether the 
origin of the title is to be sought in that favourite 
passage with the early Christians, Isa. liii. ; or 
whether, as is likely enough, both* thoughts are in 
mind, perhaps because already combined in popular 
Christian teaching, it is clear that the Lamb is 
regarded sacrificially. The Lamb has been slain, and 

* In the fourth Gospel St. John uses another name for 
Lamb (d/ny^j). 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 233 

among Jews a slain lamb would certainly suggest a 
sacrifice. Further we can scarcely go. How the 
blood of the Lamb — i.«., how the oftering of Jesus 
Christ to God in death — can effect our redemption is 
a mystery left unexplained. 

Our Lord's resurrection is clearly taught. He was 
dead, but He is alive for evermore. He is now 
emphatically " The Living One " (i. 18). He brings 
HUs grace to men by coming Himself into their 
hearts. He stands at the door and knocks, prepared 
to enter, and sup even with lukewarm Laodiceans if 
they will but receive Him (iii. 20). He is to come 
in power and glory for the overthrow of evil and 
the establishment of His kingdom. This doctrine 
of the Second Advent, often emerging in other 
New Testament writings, finds its fullest exposition 
in the Apocalypse. No date is given. Christ will 
come "as a thief" (ver. 3). Perhaps more than 
one return is thought of. The judgment of a guilty 
Church may not be contemporaneous with that of 
the world, as the judgment of Jerusalem is not with 
that of Eome. The coming of Christ is associated 
with a first resurrection, that of the martyrs, to 
be followed by a reign of a thousand years, after 
which a fresh outbreak of evil precedes the final 
victory. 

According to Baur and his school, the Apocalypse 
is acutely anti-Pauline. But there is not a particle 
of evidence for the monstrous notions that the " evil 
men," " which call themselves apostles, and they are 
not " (ii. 2), are St. Paul and his companions ; the 
Nicolaitans with their hateful works (ver. 6), St. Paul's 



234 THE THEOLOGY OF 

converts ; and the " synagogue of Satan " (ver. 9), a 
Pauline Church ! Still, the book wears a Jewish 
garb, {e.g,, xi.), and often breathes a Jewish spirit. 
The temper attributed to the martyrs reminds us of 
the Maledictory Psalms, rather than of the teachings 
of the Sermon on the Mount (vi. 10). The objection 
of the primitive Jewish Christians to eat meat offered 
to idols is here sanctioned, although it was not shared 
by St. Paul (ii. 14). But the association of this with 
fornication recalls the decree of the Jerusalem Church 
(Acts XV. 29) ; and St. John evidently stands with 
the Judsean Christians in this matter. He does not 
echo the narrow doctrines of the extreme party of 
St. James. Besides the redeemed Israelites there is 
" a great multitude, which no man could number, out 
of every nation, and of all tribes and peoples and 
tongues," in white robes, attributing their salvation 
to God (" our God," they say) and the Lamb (Rev. vii. 
9, 10). The leaves of the tree of life are " for the heal- 
ing of the nations " (xxii. 2). He that will is invited to 
take the water of life freely (ver. 17). Judgment is 
to be according to works (ii. 23 ; iii. 2). But this is 
also taught by St. Paul ; and although the Apocalypse 
does not refer to justification by faith, it appeals to 
"the grace of the Lord Jesus" (xxii. 21). There is 
not a word in commendation of the Jewish ritual. 
No temple is to be found in the New Jerusalem. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 235 



11. THE GOSPEL AND THE EPISTLES 

Seeing that the four Gospels were all written later 
than St. Paul's Epistles, they may be considered to 
belong to the third period of New Testament teaching. 
The writers of the Synoptics, however, have so per- 
sistently suppressed their own individuality in bending 
themselves to the great task of painting the portrait 
of their Master that, while we resort to the three 
first Gospels for the words of Jesus and the facts of 
His life, we cannot look to them for that interpreta- 
tion of ideas which is known as theology. This is 
their crowning merit. The facts themselves are of 
such profound significance that the simple record of 
them, interwoven as it is with the sayings of Christ, 
constitutes the most vital part of the New Testament. 
Here we learn what the historical Jesus was. Two 
of the Gospels (Matthew and Luke) inform us of 
His supernatural birth from the Virgin Mary; they 
all give graphic accounts of His teaching and miracle- 
working, devoting great attention to the last scenes, 
and thus accentuating the significance of His death, 
and bearing emphatic witness to His resurrection. 
These are the root facts out of which Christian theo- 
logy has sprung. To some extent, indeed, personal 
ideas and aims may be detected in the Synoptic writers. 
Thus, while St. Mark is content to set down his 
rugged narrative of the wonderful life with scarcely a 
comment, St. Matthew reveals himself as the Jewish 
Christian, delighting in the fulfilment of prophecy 
after the manner of St. Peter; and St. Luke is 



236 THE THEOLOGY OF 

Pauline, glowing with the universalism illustrated in 
the grace of God bestowed on the poor, the sinful, and 
the heathen. But these traits only emerge casually. 
With the fourth Evangelist the case is very different. 
St. John, as we have seen,* does not hesitate to insert 
his own reflections in the course of his narrative, and 
that with considerable freedom. Therefore we can 
study his theology in his Gospel as well as in his 
Epistles. 

The fundamental agreement between the represen- 
tation of our Lord's teaching in the fourth Gospel and 
that in the Synoptics, to which attention was directed 
in an earlier part of this book,t vastly simplifies 
the study of Johannine theology. That study has 
generally consisted for the most part in an examina- 
tion of the discourses ascribed to our Lord in St. 
John's narrative. These, however, have been already 
looked at in their right place among the teachings 
of Christ. They only touch Johannine theology 
indirectly by throwing light on the mind of the one 
disciple, who, as far as we know, was alone capable of 
absorbing and reproducing them, and who seems to 
have translated them into his own style of thought 
and language. It is in his independent statements 
that we must find the ideas which can be ascribed 
immediately to the inspired thinking of St. John 
himself. 

It has been common to call the theology of St. 

John mystical, a true characterisation of its spirit, but 

not of its method. As it has often been remarked, 

St. John is contemplative rather than speculative. 

* Pages 16, IC. f See page 38. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 237 

His mind instinctively broods over the deepest truths 
of the spiritual life, or soars with delight into the 
highest regions of Divine existence, and in all his 
meditation he seizes ideas in their antithetical positive 
and negative relations without toiling through a 
tedious process of syllogistic reasoning. But there is 
one point at which he breaks with the mystic. He 
does not derive his knowledge of God from intuition, 
but finds it in the historical facts of the earthly life 
of Jesus Christ. He even denies the existence of any 
immediate knowledge of God, and asserts that the only 
way in which God can be known is by means of the 
revelation of Christ (John i. 18), through that incar- 
nate Word of which he and his companions have had 
occular, sensible experience — "that which we have 
heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that 
which we beheld, and our hands handled, concern- 
ing the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and 
we have seen, and bear witness)," etc. (1 John i. 1, 2). 
This is the direct contradiction of the mystical method. 
Nevertheless, it arrives at richer results of Divine 
knowledge than any acquired by the process of 
subjective intuition. The man who knew Jesus Christ 
best on earth, and who confessed that he had obtained 
his knowledge of the Father from the Son, has given 
us our highest and clearest ideas of God. Seeing the 
Father in the Son, St. John perceives that the very 
being of God is light — i.e.^ true goodness (1 John i. 5) ; 
love (iv. 8); and life (John v. 26). These three 
Johanmne attributes of God blend and interact ; but 
the central one is that on which the Apostle lays the 
greatest stress. God is love essentially by nature. All 



238 THE THEOLOGY OF 

the action of God in redemption is traced back to the 
infinite fountains of Divine love. And this is not an 
intuitional truth, or a deduction from reflection upon 
the writer's own nature as the Apostle of love, which 
it might be if it were only got in subjective medita- 
tion. It is a result of the objective revelation in the 
person of Jesus Christ. It is a transcription of the 
character of our Lord by His most intimate disciple, 
and an unhesitating ascription of it to God. 

The theology of St. John, then, is emphatically 
Christo-centric. The person and life of our Lord 
constitute the heart and root and source of all the 
Johannine religious ideas. The Apostle declares that 
the object with which he wrote his Gospel was that 
his readers might *' believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
the Son of God,'' and so might "have life in His 
name " (John xx. 31). In 1 John the supreme 
requisite is to believe in the name of God's Son Jesus 
Christ (1 John iv. 2, 3), to confess the Son (ii. 23), 
etc. The Messiahship of Jesus is prominent through- 
out. The universah'sm of the Apostle never blinds 
him to the Jewish form of the Christian revelation. 

In writing of the person of our Lord, St. John 
brings the truths concerning His Divine nature into 
the greatest prominence. It is in the fourth Gospel 
that we have the fullest presentation of the Divinity 
of Christ anywhere to be found in the Bible. The 
Evangelist's version of our Lord's own words is evi- 
dently determined with a special view to this end ; 
for he has selected those utterances that bring out 
the higher nature of Christ and recast them so as 
to form a unique portrait of the incarnate Son of 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 239 

God. His own comments and direct statements on 
this subject are most distinct and emphatic. 

First, we have St. John's description of the liOgos 
(6 A,dyo<j), i.6., the Word, in the introduction to his 
Gospel. This is a peculiarly Johannine thought. 
St. John never represents our Lord to have called Him- 
self the Word. Yet he introduces the name abruptly, 
on the evident assiimption that it is familiar to his 
readers. Since the very same title was in use 
among the Alexandrian Jews for the Divine mind 
as the Mediator of creation, it is most reasonable to 
suppose that the Evangelist, or perhaps some other 
thinkers before him, took it over into Christian 
teaching and applied it to Jesus Christ. But though 
the title seems to have come from Hellenic sources, 
the ideas attached to it were not borrowed from the 
same region, for St. John's Logos is very different from 
the Logos of Philo. They may be contrasted in four 
important particulars. Philo's Logos is (1) " reason," 
rather than " Word " ; (2) really impersonal, though 
allegorically personified ; (3) not to be thought of as 
incarnate; (4) never identified with the Messiah. 
But St. John's Logos is (1) the "Word," as the con- 
text proves; (2) a Person; (3) incarnate; (4) identified 
with the Messiah. The thoughts which lie behind the 
title are rather those of the creative word of Genesis, 
the revealing "word of the Lord" in prophecy, and the 
sacred " name of the Lord " so frequently mentioned 
in the Old Testament. Using the Alexandrian term, 
and reading into it Old Testament ideas, perhaps with 
associations gathered from later Palestinian Judaism, 
St. John calmly identifies the awful Word of God 



240 THE THEOLOGY OF 

with Jesus Christ. He does not say that the Word 
was manifest in Christ. He says, " The Word became 
flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory " 
(John i. 14); and in the passage already quoted from 
1 John, the Apostle tells us that it is the Word of 
whom he and his fellow-disciples have had such close 
corporeal experience. 

Now St. John asserts certain great facts concern- 
ing the Word. First, He was pre-mundane. The 
phrase "in the begi^ning" {Iv apxS)j a manifest 
allusion to the opening words of Genesis, carries us 
back to the commencement of all things. In that 
distant dawn of creation the Word was existing and 
present. The language of the Evangelist does not 
affirm absolute eternity ; but on the other hand it 
drops no hint as to a beginning of the Word. At 
the first appearance of any created thing the Word is 
found to be in existence. Then He was in intimate 
relation and close converse with God — "face to face 
with God " (TTpos Tov ©cdv). Next, it is stated that 
He was Divine in nature. He "was God" — true 
God, not merely God-like. The term " God " is here 
used as a predicate of quality, accentuating the nature 
of its object rather than the individual personality, 
by means of the absence of the article (0€os, not 6 
©cos). St. John never employs the term ^* God " of 
Christ in the subject of a sentence. It js difficult to 
grasp his exact meaning. But probably this usage, 
combined with the phrase "the Word was face to 
face with God," is intended to suggest a distinction 
of personality. Further, the Evangelist declares that 
the Word was the agent of- creation. All things 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 241 

were made by means of Him. (St* avrov). Life 
was inherent in Him. Apparently the Evangelist is 
here referring to the life of nature, as he is follow- 
ing immediately on the mention of creation and 
preceding his allusion to the revelation in prophecy. 
This life of nature, being derived from the Word, 
was the light of men, although its shining in the 
darkness of the world was not comprehended, so 
that a personal manifestation of the Word became 
necessary. 

While the term " the Word " is thus prominent in 
the prologue of the Gospel, elsewhere St. John usually 
refers to the Divine nature of our Lord under the 
title " Son of God." Jesus is " tJie Son of God " (6 
vtos rov 0€oiJ), a term which implies exclusiveness. 

More distinctly, He is " the only begotten Son, 
which is in the bosom of the Father " (John i. 18).* 
This phrase makes it quite certain that the idea of 
Divine Sonship is personal, not official, as it was 
among the Jews, who called the Messiah the Son of 
God without thereby recognising His Divinity. It 
also distinguishes the Sonship of Christ from that of 
Christians or men generally who are taught to regard 
God as their Father. Christ's Sonship is the only 
true, perfect sonship, that with the full nature of the 
Father present in the Son. Lastly, the concluding 
words of the phrase, being in the present tense, 
indicate that the incarnation did not involve any 

* Authorities differ on this text, some prefemng the read- 
ing ** the only begotten God," a phrase that is not in harmony 
with New Testament usage. The expression " only begotton 
Son " is found in John iii. 16, and 1 John iv. 9. 

16 



242 THE THEOLOGY OF 

separation between Christ and His Father. He 
always enjoyed the consciousness of His Father's 
love and nearness ; He did not lose this joy when He 
came among us. In entering this worid He did not 
leave heaven : He brought heaven with Him. It is 
in accordance with this conception that St. John does 
not follow St. Paul in representing the incarnation as 
a humiliation ; the glory of Christ is not diminished 
by His human limitations, because this glory does 
not consist in external show and splendour (ver. 14). 
It is the glory of goodness, and the goodness of the 
Son is not less but more apparent in His earthly life. 
Similarly St. John quotes words of our Lord which 
recognise the death of Christ as His glorification 
(xiii. 31, 32). 

There can be no doubt that St. John taught the 
reality of our Lord's human nature. "The Word 
became flesh" — t.e., human (i. 14). According to 
1 John the denial of the incarnation is the very spirit 
of antichrist (1 John iv. 3). St. John was evidently 
contending against the nascent Docetism of his day 
and locality. He had found all his knowledge of Grod 
in the visible, human Christ; and to endeavour to 
dissipate the image of his Lord by representing it to 
be no real presence was intolerable. It has been said 
that St. John only contends for a fleshly body in which 
the Logos dwelt. No doubt the Apostle is so com- 
plete a Jew that he cannot think of a perfect human 
presence excepting in terms of body. The flesh is 
with him, as with other Jews, the name of the whole 
humanity, because to people who think in the concrete 
the most natural way of representing human nature 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 243 

is by means of its outward and visible properties. 
But St. John does not deny the existence of a human 
soul in Jesus. His narrative contains several refer- 
ences to it {e.g., John x. 11, 15, 17; 1 John iii. 16), 
and even his record of the phrase " the Son of Man " 
implies an acceptance of the reality of our Lord's 
human nature. 

It is the teaching of St. John that the supreme 
purpose of the advent of Christ was the manifestation 
of the glory of God in the overthrow of the dominion 
of Satan and the deliverance of the world from the 
ruin of sin. Sin is lawlessness (1 John iii. 4), not as 
a formal transgression of the Hebrew Torah, but as 
a wilful disregard of the supreme law of God — dis- 
obedience against God Himself. The devil rules the 
world in its sin (v. 19). St. John does not echo 
St. Paul's treatment of Satanic influence in connecting 
it with physical ills, disease, and death, so that it 
could be used by God and the Church as an agent of 
chastisement. The other aspect of Satanic power, 
the spiritual dominion of wickedness — which, indeed, 
is recognised by St. Paul — comes out strongly in the 
fourth Evangelist. He sees a great conflict in 
progress between light and darkness, Christ and 
Satan ; and the whole scheme of his Gospel seems to 
be arranged so as to present this to us in a series of 
vivid, dramatic pictures. It has even been suggested 
that we have here a Gnostic division of the human 
race into two essentially opposite classes — the children 
of God, and the children of the devil.* But, although 

♦ See p. 49, where this theory is considered in relation to 
our Lord's teachings recorded by St. John. 



244 THE THEOLOGY OF 

some such division is recognised in the present con- 
dition of mankind (iii. 10), the Gnostic fatalism which 
would make it necessary and eternal, because consti- 
tutional, almost physiological, is directly contrary 
to St. John's ideas. The Apostle proclaims God's 
love to the world (e.^., John iii, 16), and makes 
it clear that the gospel is for all mankind {e.g.y 
1 John iv. 14, 15). His is no gospel confined to 
a favoured race or order of men. In regard to the 
scope of redemption, St. John is as much a universalist 
as St. Paul. 

While redemption is regarded negatively as deliver- 
ance from condemnation and destruction in the 
cleansing away of sin and the abolition of the dominion 
of Satan, positively it appears as the gift of life. The 
idea of life in Christ — set before us in contrast to the 
doom of destruction — is not to be understood meta- 
phorically as future bliss ; it represents the real gift 
of such energies and powers as are comprehended in 
the notion of actual vitality. This biological concep- 
tion of salvation is a distinctive feature of Johannine 
theology, which is thereby strongly differentiated in 
form from the forensic theology of St. Paul — ^in form, 
but not in essence, since the same idea is also found 
in Pauline teaching side by side with the legal con- 
ceptions of justification, and without any contradiction 
(e.^., Rom. vi. 23). In St. John this is much more 
emphatic and characteristic. Accordingly the reception 
of the blessings of salvation is the result of the be- 
getting of a new life in us by God. The Christian is 
'* begotten of God " (1 John v. 1, 18) j and Christians 
are in an especial sense " children of God," who are 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 245 

growing into the likeness of Christ (iii. 2, 3), con- 
tinuous union with whom keeps His people from sin. 
Thus St. John says, " Whosoever abideth in Him 
sinneth not " (ver. 6). This cannot be affirmed ab- 
solutely of our present state, since the Apostle has 
just before said, " If we say that we have no sin, we 
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us " (i. 8). 
It must mean, then, that just in proportion as we 
abide in Christ are we free from sin. 

Now St. John is nuost clear and emphatic in the 
statement that these vast results are brought about 
by God out of pure love for the world. Or, if more 
may be said, this will only go to show how completely 
God wills the work of redemption. Thus so far is 
St. John from hinting at the existence of any discord 
among the Divine attributes, justice opposed to mercy, 
etc., that he even brings in the faithfulness and 
righteousness of God as grounds on which He forgives 
the penitent, saying, '* If we confess our sins, He is 
faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to 
cleanse us from all unrighteousness " (ver. 9). 

St. John agrees with the universal testimony of the 
Apostles that this Divine work is .carried out by Jesus 
Christ. Because God loved the world and desired to 
save it from ruin. He sent His Son into the world. 
Thus the incarnation is attributed to the saving 
purpose of God. With the Apostle this is essential. 
The denial of the incarnation is fatal. Nevertheless, 
St. John is not satisfied to rest on this fact alone, 
sublimely beneficent as it is. He carries us on to the 
death of Christ, saying, " The blood of Jesus His Son 
cleanseth us from all sin " (ver. 7). The association of 



246 THE THEOLOGY OF 

the two words *' blood " and " cleanseth " makes it clear 
that the Apostle has a sacrificial idea in his mind. 
He must therefore be thinking of the blood shed in 
death which purifies from the stain of sin by its 
sacrificial efiicacy. He does not say how this can be. 
It is enough that he has the analogy of Hebrew 
ritual in his mind to fall back upon, although he 
makes no direct allusion to it. Similarly he teaches 
that the life-consecration of our Lord, symbolised 
by His baptism, would not be sufficient without His 
death, for He "came by water and blood . . . not 
with the water only, but with the water and with 
the blood '' (v. 6). 

It is quite in accordance with these statements 
concerning the process that the result should be called 
a " propitiation " (tXao-fios). Thus St. John writes, 
" He is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours 
only, but also for the whole world " (ii. 2) ; and again, 
** God sent His Son to be the propitiation for our 
sins " (iv. 10). But when we recollect the Apostle's 
reiterated assertion of God's love for the world, and 
observe that the second of these references to pro- 
pitiation is actually prefaced by the mention of the 
Divine love in the words "Not that we loved God, 
but that He loved us, and sent His Son," etc., show- 
ing that the immediate cause of the propitiation was 
this love of God, we must see that St. John is at the 
very antipodes of the heathenish position, according 
to which the animosity of an unfriendly divinity is 
allayed by the presentation of a coveted sacrifice. 
Nothing of the kind can be thought of. Then the 
Apostle must be contemplating the propitiation in 



THE FEW TESTAMENT 247 

some other aspects. What is this ? Although clearly 
it is not to move God to be kindly disposed, seeing 
that Gknl Himself provides it simply because He is 
already moved by love, still the sin needs to be 
cleansed, and the propitiation is to effect this end^ 
Perhaps, then, we might say that it comes nearer 
the idea of an expiation. It is to do away with the 
injurious effects of sin, and especially the guilt, 
which, while it is not blotted out, acts as an effectual 
hindrance to God^s good intention, neutralising His 
grace. Even after this great propitiation in the 
blood of Christ has been effected, there is still a 
further work for our Lord to do in delivering us 
from the ruin of sin. He is our Advocate {irapaKkitjfro^ 
with the Father, interceding for us. Again, it is 
difficult for us to see what room there is for this 
advocacy and intercession, seeing that Grod is already 
most desirous to forgive and save. But we must 
understand that the result of the work of Christ is 
the same as that of a persuading intercession; it 
is needed in order that we may be set right with 
God. That work our Lord is doing now. It is a 
continuous intercession carried on by the exalted 
Christ — a truth also expressed by St. Paul {e,g.y 
Rom. viii. 34) and in Hebrews (vii. 25). Finally, 
while the blessings of the saving work of Christ 
are free to all mankind and designed for the benefit 
of the whole world, they can only be received on 
certain conditions. First, there must be confession 
of sin, if sin is to be forgiven (1 John L 9). Then we 
must have faith in Christ, if we would receive the life 
of Christ. Faith is represented by St. John on its 



248 THEOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT 

receptive side. It is not the reception of an idea, 
however, but the opening up of the soul for Christ 
to come in ; so that '' he that hath the Son hath 
the life" (v. 12). 



Printed by Hazell, Watson, d: Viney, Ld., London and AyUibwiTf,